Talk:Paul Conrad

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

To do[edit]

  • First Pulitzer
    • For work in 1963, focused on civil rights movement. Continued at the Times
  • In later life:
    • Add media consolidation narrative
      • Date? Chandler sells paper, new owners seeking greater profit
    • Lessening influence of the editorial cartoonist
      • Role of television; readers no longer read, nor did they have the background needed to "get" editorial cartoons
      • More conservative climate of the 1980s and 1990s
      • Unwillingness of publishers to allow criticism, challenge authority, or anger advertisers
        • Conrad repeatedly makes the important point that it is this very criticism that sold papers and that the publishers were shooting themselves in the foot. Profitability is inevitably driven by readers and their interest. Chandler knew this, and by turning the once conservative Times into a more liberal paper (a paper with more voices instead of a singular voice), he increased profitability while at the same time improving the quality of its journalism. After Chandler sold the paper, the quality declined dramatically, to the point where it is no longer considered an important or a viable paper in the world of journalism. The art of "afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted" isn't just a liberal point of view, it's a profitable business model.
      • Forced retirement (buyout) of Conrad and 100s of others mid 90s
  • Add style section
    • Importance of erudition, research, and focused anger
    • Influences
    • Single panel vs. strip; words vs. images
    • Caricatures
  • Notable Cartoons
  • Need copy of Newsweek dated September 12, 1977
  • "Controversies" is a temp. section header name until it can be merged into a more appropriate section
    • Should be merged into a subsection of "Work" called "Reception" or something similar
    • Add lawsuits: Bill Mauldin, Sam Yorty (Yorty v. Chandler), Fred Hartley
    • Censored cartoons; most famous appears to be the Republican elephant mating with the Democratic donkey
  • Personal life
    • Drunk driving arrest and his subsequent cartoon taking himself to task in public

Issues and errata[edit]

  • In at least two sources, (Multer-Wellin 2006, and Hawkins 1980) Conrad says he got his start as a cartoonist when an editor at the Daily Iowan asked him to join the paper. This is true, and is confirmed by the editor himself (Charlie Carroll) in The Gazette 2010. The problem is that Conrad says this meeting took place in Don Alberhasky's bar. But in the documentary, he is seen outside and inside of Don's brother's bar. Don owned the "Don's Central Tap" which no longer exists, while Bernie owned the Fox Head Tavern which is now doing business as "Dave's Fox Head Tavern". I'm guessing that Dave is David Alberhasky, Bernie's son, but I don't know for sure. I also don't know why Conrad refers to Don here but based on the limited research I've done, it appears that Don's bar existed during the time frame Conrad describes, but they filmed in Dave's (previously Bernie's?) bar. I'm going to avoid naming the exact bar for now in the article, however, I'm starting to think they were taking liberties and re-created this scene for the sake of reminiscing on camera for the documentary regardless of the actual location. This is because in the documentary, Conrad says the bar was once twice the size. The thing is, I don't think that was true for the bar they were in ("Dave's Fox Head Tavern" at 402 E Market St, Iowa City, IA ), and you can clearly see that it is impossible from the size of the original building. On the other hand, it was probably true for "Don's Central Tap" (now partly a book store at 203 N Linn St, Iowa City, IA), which reportedly took up "three floors of a quarter block building, with a fire marshal's capacity of over a thousand". Comparing the two locations on Google maps makes this clear. So this is exactly what Conrad was describing, but since that bar no longer existed, he (and the director) appeared to be trying to recreate the scene in another bar. Whether or not this is exactly what happened, I find it all a bit strange. Why not just say the original bar no longer exists but it was twice the size of this bar, which by the way, is owned by the original bar's brother? The whole thing has me confused, but I'm almost certain based on the evidence, that Conrad was describing "Don's Central Tap" while being filmed in "Dave's Fox Head Tavern" simply because the former no longer exists. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • At least one (there may be more) source claims he taught at the Denver Art Museum in the early 1950s, but from what I can tell, this is an error. Documents show that he gave a lecture at the museum in 1964. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as activity goes, most sources seem to point to 2008 as his last active year, but I haven't yet confirmed this to be absolutely true due to ambiguity. For example, Matt Schudel of The Washington Post writes: "In 1993, Mr. Conrad accepted a buyout from his newspaper but continued to draw syndicated cartoons for more than 15 years. After the 2008 election, he depicted Sarah Palin with a smoking machine gun in one hand as she held up the trunk of a slain Republican Party elephant in the other." Most sources do not talk about his cartoons after 2008. Then again, Schudel's bio had a few inaccuracies so I'm not sure if he is correct on this. However, other sources do seem in parity with this activity, so I've changed it to 2008 for now. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


  1. Extra adjectives in lead -- "conservative" for LAT is not an "obvious adjective" in the lead, and much of it is fluff about his wonderful talent etc. Trim (my perennial advice) all adjectives and adverbs not essential to figuring out what the article says <g>
  2. Consider reducing duplication - you have "an identical twin" in the immediate sentence before "twin brother" etc. You could eliminate the first usage entirely and add "identical" before the second use of "twin" etc. If an adjective is used twice in an article, it is likely the second use is not required <g>.
  3. Reduce the use of anecdotes as being fun but not necessarily encyclopedic in value. A few showing his transition from conservative Catholic to modern liberal would suffice.
  4. Where a tv show is used - try to find a transcript for readers - videos are notorious as sources in articles, and for many readers basically are pretty unusable to show much (watching an hour show for two lines is a stretch).
  5. His reputation as a sculptor may be worth a sentence at most - it is not a defining characteristic for hom AFAICT.

Readability is 50 which is quite good by Wikipedia standards (basically the median is about 50 though I think 55+ is reachable here). Left to my "ruthless trimming" beliefs, I would likely cut it down in size by about a third <g>. Main advice - cut the fluff to the bone. I know a lot of older "good articles" are a tad florid, but you asked for my opinion and my edits on Joseph Widney show how much can be cut and actually give more real information to readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. Your criticism sounds reasonable. I'll give this a look-see mañana. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I've added the wiki format to your numbers to allow for your preferred formatting. If this isn't OK, please revert. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Response: Collect, I agree with everything you've said up above except for your remarks about his sculptures. While it may not be a "defining characteristic" of the height of his career as a cartoonist, it was a notable part of his later life as an artist, and it demonstrates his personal relationship with the church and his work on peace and social justice issues, his continuing commentary on US politics away from the editorial page, and his commitment to "giving back" to society through his fundraising efforts. The documentary film about his life features his sculptures quite prominently in every major opening scene and the sources have more to say about this. If I didn't make this notability clear, I will try to do so again. I'm also open to moving the sculptures to another section. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Historically, Conrad was part of a major shift in focus from a conservative to a liberal approach for the newspaper, and this is emphasized over and over again in the sources about the history of the Los Angeles Times. Conrad's presence at the paper was a radical shift in direction for the Times, and this was a deliberate tactical strategy by the publisher to compete with larger newspapers. So, it is important, historically, to note that Conrad's liberal presence at the conservative Times was notable, to the point where the governor of California complained about Conrad's liberalism on a daily basis to the publisher. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I used the NYT obit[1] for my opinion on his later art ... ranking it after him being a helium balloon enthusiast <g>. The "bronze bust" of GWB is a hat and boots and nothing between -- and the NYT did not view it as a serious piece of art. Worth a sentence perhaps - but it was not a major part of his obit and I see no higher weight in other sources. YMMV. Collect (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
We have lots of serious sources on his work as a sculpturist,[2] and even a documentary film. I generally don't write an entire article based on a NYT obit, as they are notoriously error-prone. For example, the widow of the late journalist Michael Hastings who died in a car crash last year is still talking about how the NYT obit made several unsupported and biased claims against him. The last time I heard her bring this up was approximately one month ago, even though he died a year ago. In fact, I've noticed an enormous number of complaints about NYT obits over the years, to the point where I don't take them very seriously. However, I understand that you are trying to measure and gauge importance, but please understand that there are limitations, which is why it is important to take a wide sample. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources also indicate that Conrad felt quite strongly about his sculptures, meaning that they were incredibly important to him as an artist. In addition to being shown at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, they also appeared at the Fullerton Museum Center (1993), the Guggenheim Gallery (Chapman College, 1990), the Brand Library Galleries (1985), and the Palos Verdes Art Gallery (1980). According to Grady Miller of the Canyon News, Conrad "was specially proud of his bronze sculptures, which could be taken as a illustration of both his artistic range and his political beliefs." The Michigan Quarterly Review, among other publications archived in the finding aid provided by the Huntington Library, has featured his writing about sculpture and photographs of his work.[3][4] Their importance to understanding the artist and their importance to the artist cannot be underestimated. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not here to debate - you asked my opinions and I gave them, and did my due diligence on the topic by looking at the NYT which is not generally as deprecated on Wikipedia as you might wish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Conrad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Viriditas. I will review this article. I will try to start this review within a couple of days, and to finish it within several days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no disambig links in the article. There are a number of external links of various indeterminate or broken statuses—I will need to investigate each one of these individually. Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only found one, and I fixed it.[5] I'll look for more. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you click the "external links" link in the toolbox to the right? For me, it is showing one unrecognized direct, one connection failed or remote server error, and "heuristics resolved as likely dead" status. I meant to look at these more carefully as part of my review, but if you happen to resolve them first, that would of course be OK too. Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I evidently missed a few. Now they are all fixed. I could not fix the "invalid type (application/pdf) for .doc file" other than to specify it's a PDF file inline, which I've done. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, this seems to be all good. Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    There were some minor style concerns, but they have been corrected.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No original research. All the sources appear reliable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good scope, stays focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable. There was a minor incident during the review where two editors had some disagreement, but that appears to be resolved.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There is a fair use rationale included for the one non-free image. There is no caption in the infobox picture.
    Added. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Overall:


  • "He is best known for his work as the chief editorial cartoonist for the Los Angeles Times during a time when the newspaper was in transition under the direction of publisher Otis Chandler who recruited Conrad from the Denver Post.": grammatically I am convinced you need a comma after "Chandler". The phrase "who recruited Conrad from the Denver Post" is not required to identify Chandler, and cannot be a restrictive clause.
  • "At the conservative Times, Conrad brought a more liberal editorial perspective that readers both celebrated and criticized, but also respected for his sheer talent and his ability to speak truth to power.": Again grammatically/semantically, the sentence doesn't seem to quite work. It is the perspective that the readers celebrated and criticized, but I think it is Conrad the man that readers respected for his talent and ability to speak the truth. Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean, but I read it like this: "readers both celebrated and criticized [his perspective], but also respected [his perspective] [due to Conrad's] talent [as a political cartoonist] and his [editorial] ability to speak truth to power." Of course, if I have to explain this, then something is wrong. Can you suggest some changes? Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I will try to think of a good wording to suggest to you. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have tried copy-editing this sentence. See what you think—we can always try something else if you disagree with the edit. Moisejp (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Early life:

  • "Conrad was born an identical twin to Robert and Florence Conrad." I would suggest taking out "identical twin" here. The next sentence already indicated he had a twin—maybe you could add "identical" to the next sentence. The other reason is that the first time I read "born an identical twin to Robert and Florence Conrad" I thought, "What doe this mean? Robert and Florence were his identical twins?" Obviously, that reading wouldn't make sense, but the point is I found the sentence a little confusing at first. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is probably quite a matter of personal preference, but when I work on articles, I tend to add references to every single sentence, so that there is absolutely no ambiguity. You don't do that, and I assume your system is that anything after the last reference is included under the next reference. If that makes more sense to you, that's fine. In the Early life section, I was wondering whether you would want to add a ref to at least "He originally planned to attend Iowa State University after the war in 1945, but instead taught himself to play bass and joined a big band." The reason is that there is a paragraph break, so that creates somewhat of a break in the flow of ideas—for me, it would be prudent to at least add a ref here. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. I tend to move the refs to the end of the paragraph for readability, aside from direct quotes, statistics and controversial material. The material in question can be found in ref 3, so I moved it to the end. I would have to look, but I think it's also in ref 6 as well, and of course, in ref 9. There's a few more that discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "He received his degree in art in 1950." Add "meanwhile" or something to the start of the sentence? In the next paragraph, we find out the result of Conrad's professors sending his cartoons to the Denver Post. I feel that as is, the sentence about getting has degree sits kind of uncomfortably in the middle of the story about the Post, but that "meanwhile" would help. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It does sound weird, but I'm not sure "meanwhile" will help. I think there is only one solution, and that's to move it to the first sentence in the first paragraph of the next section. I can't think of any other way to do it. Let me try it and see what you say. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. Does this work? Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that looks good to me. Actually, I just noticed now, I wonder whether it would be clearer to remove "where he drew cartoons for the next 14 years". This is followed by "At this time, Conrad sought..." It may not be totally clear at first whether this was in 1950 or 1964. Another reason it doesn't hurt to remove "the next 14 years" is that we later learn he changed jobs in 1964. What do you think about this idea? Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to make it clear to the reader in the beginning that he spent the next 14 years at the Post. I agree that the "at this time" bit can be confusing, but what I'm trying to get across is 1) he joined the Post and stayed there for the next 14 years, 2) after he joined the Post he consulted with his childhood mentor who discouraged him, and 3) he worked harder as a result, and won the Pulitzer. I don't see how removing the time frame introducing his career span helps. Is there room for improvement? Sure. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried out "Early in his career..." What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Brilliant. I wish I would have thought of that myself. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Except for the bathroom walls issue, dealt with under Spot checks below, this section looks good. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Denver Post:

  • "The hard work finally paid off when Conrad received the Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for editorial cartooning." Simplify to "In Conrad received the Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for editorial cartooning." I'm uncomfortable with the current sentence for at least a couple of reasons. One is that he had other forms of success before his Pulitzer—for example, his recognition from Time. Another reason is "finally" sounds just slightly subjective. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It refers to the previous sentence, "This discouragement from his childhood role model pushed Conrad to work harder at the Post." The recognition from Time isn't equivalent to receiving a Pulitzer. However, I agree it is somewhat subjective in terms of the sources, so I'll change it. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Done, but it is now a weaker read and more of a X occurred on Y date list, which is poor prose. Is it subjective to note that 1) Conrad said during this time that he was working harder to become successful due to criticism from his childhood role model, and 2) the hard work paid off with a Pulitzer? This is a rhetorical question. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally prefer your newly edited version. However, I do see your point that the sentence about the Pulitzer may possibly fall a little flat. If you feel strongly that it was better before, you could revert to your earlier version. Another idea: (after the sentence about praise from Time) "Conrad's success continued when in 1964 he received the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning." Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to revert. Your criticism was good. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This section looks good. Moisejp (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Reading the citation, Conrad "admits" to not being objective or says that "he can never be accused of being objective". This would help with context for why his work created critical review. Would the section title also be better written as "Critical review" or such, since controversy sections should be avoided if possible? Also, not sure how the review process works, so I hope this ok here. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to address Conrad's quote because you have taken it out of context and it has nothing to do with the controversy section. As for the current section title, it classifies what Wikipedia describes as "protracted public disputes" (see Wikipedia:Criticism). In other words, these are not "critical reviews" at all, but actual, public controversies that Conrad was involved with and that received media attention. As a result, I believe the current section title is appropriate and accurate per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but as always, I am open to good suggestions for improvement. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This section looks good. Moisejp (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times:

  • "Unperturbed, Conrad considered his place on this list as a badge of honor, but members of the list were exposed to greater scrutiny by the government and subject to investigation." I feel this would be better as two sentences. It feels like a bit of a stretch to try to make this one extended idea. Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "but no changes were made" Should this be "no charges were made"? Or is "changes" the intended idea—i.e., the IRS did not deem it necessary to change any of Conrad's submitted numbers? Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It's definitely "changes". An IRS audit involves proposes changes to a tax return. "Charges" is an entirely different level of malfeasance. According to the IRS, "Audits can result in no changes or changes. Any proposed changes to your return will be explained.[6] However, I believe the source also supports the term "changes". I'll check... Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Confirmed. "Changes" is the correct term. For only one example, see the NYT obit: "He made the Nixon “enemies list,” and his taxes were audited four times, without changes."[7] Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez replaced Conrad at the Times with a conservative approach." Suggested change: "Conservative cartoonist Michael Ramirez replaced Conrad at the Times." Or "Conrad was replaced at the Times with conservative cartoonist Michael Ramirez."
The later looks pretty good. --Malerooster (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Los Angeles Times section looks good too. Moisejp (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal life:

  • Can this be reviewed for prose as well? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Review progress

  • Hello. I have had a busy couple of days—and also I have been following the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents page to try to look for evidence this article may be stable moving forward. But regardless, I hope to give the article the benefit of the doubt and do some more work on it in the next couple of days. Thank you for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "Conrad gave The Trinity a verde patina to give it the appearance of copper": I was going to suggest a wiki-link or something to "verda patina" because I am not familiar with that term. But I couldn't immediately find any page to suggest to link to. Or reword it to something like "painted The Trinity to give it the appearance of copper". Or if you think it is obvious enough from the context that "verde patina" has something to do with painting, then leaving it as is could be another possibility. Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it is a pretty common way of describing a faux copper finish. I'll see if I can't add a link to make it more obvious. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This section looks good. Moisejp (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Rancho Palos Verdes": wiki-link, or change to "Rancho Palos Verdes, California". I didn't know where it was. Or add something like "Conrad also created several works of public art that are on display in California" (since conceivably some people might not know where Santa Monica is either). Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no preference. Keep in mind, it is linked in the infobox as his place of death. I'll add another link to the sculpture section if you like. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. I left the link in the infobox, added the link to the sculpture section per your suggestion, and removed the existing link from the death section. Per the MOS, two links may be acceptable, while three may be considered excessive. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "He earned the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning three times..." Not a big deal, but personally I would treat a new section as being somewhat of a clean break, and would re-mention the person's name, i.e., "Conrad earned..." But if you disagree that that's necessary, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This section looks good. Moisejp (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal life:

  • "Conrad was an imposing man with a powerful voice who..." I think I saw you had a disagreement with Malerooster about this. For me, this is a grey zone, that on one hand sounds subjective, but on the other is (presumably) supported by the sources. So it's possibly acceptable, but if there's any doubt, why not add "reportedly" or "by some accounts"?
    • I believe that's what I did after the concern was raised. In the current version (modified after the objection was raised) it says that Conrad was an imposing man with a powerful voice who was often seen smoking a pipe while working on his cartoons. I then follow that introduction by citing Rainey and the Library of Congress to support it. If you believe it requires some kind of change or hedge, then I trust you implicitly to make the correct decision. The problem I had with Malerooster is that he deleted sourced material and seemed to be engaging in POV editing. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although he was raised as a Republican and a Catholic, his views changed as he aged. By 1960, the media was comparing his point of view to an "Adlai Stevenson Democrat"." Is this referring (I think) to Adlai Stevenson II? I would definitely put a wiki-link here. I had no idea who Adlai Stevenson was, which (assuming there are other people like me) diminishes the value of the reference. Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "While Conrad consistently remained anti-abortion in his outlook, his stance later evolved into a pro-choice position when the government sought to restrict women's access to abortion." I think you mean here that later, although he personally would not recommend abortion, he recognized/supported other people's right to get an abortion if they chose to (or something along those lines). That's what I imagine you mean, but I think "consistently remained anti-abortion" and "later evolved into a pro-choice position" could well appear contradictory or at the very least confusing. I haven't read the source yet (will spot-check sources after I finish getting through the prose), but do you have any ideas to clarify if you mean that or something else? Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You're correct. I'll think about how to clarify it. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. The easiest solution was to cite Schudel 2010. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


  • I noticed some of the references have retrieval dates, but some don't.
    • Only web references need them. Which one did you have in mind? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, going through the web refs, there seem to a bunch that don't have them: starting at ref #3, 8, 12 (Time also needs to be italicized), 14, 17, 19 [these last bunch are all Time; do online subscription articles from magazines not require retrieval dates?], 20, 21, 27, 28, 38, 39 (requires italicization), 43, 44. Moisejp (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I don't think they are required for GAN and usage seems to differ. Print pubs. generally don't need them, but many editors use them to indicate when they last accessed the site. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think ref #31 (about Pulitzer Prizes) probably needs more information.
    • How about the page title, "Editorial Cartooning"? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. I also added the category. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I will do spot checks of the content of the references soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • At the end, I'll also go back and attend to any unresolved questions or issues that came up during the review. Moisejp (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Spot checks:

  • "He attended St. Augustin Elementary School in Des Moines where he first began to show interest in art by writing on the bathroom stalls." The source says: "Paul later quipped that his cartooning career began with a drawing scrawled on the restroom wall at St. Augustin Elementary School in Des Moines. At age 8." A few problems: 1. "Quipped" suggests Conrad may not have been serious about this claim, and may have told it for comic effect; 2. The source only talks about drawing on one wall not multiple ones; 3. Writing and drawing are not the same thing, and although we can imagine "wall" may well = "stall" the source does not specify this. But I think the first issue is the biggest one, and I would suggest it may be prudent to remove this detail (about his first interest in art) from the narrative. Moisejp (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It's a quip, but it's repeated in so many sources and in so many recorded interviews, it seems part of his narrative. He brings it up in almost every interview when asked how his career began, and it appears in many authoritative sources. I'm happy to dig up some more sources, but humorous or not, he's pretty serious about it being the beginning of his art career, and while I'm fairly certain he's serious, it may be more effective to use a direct quote here. If we didn't mention it, then the encyclopedia article would not be complete. What your query is really getting at is how we frame it, whether he is serious or joking, but as far as I can tell he's serious, but joking about it, at the same time. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • There's so many examples, I don't know where to begin. Here's a sample from the Paul Conrad entry in the Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives in the Gale database: "Conrad is the son of Robert H. Conrad, a freight and passenger agent, and his wife, Florence G. (Lawler) Conrad. Conrad attended Saint Augustine's elementary school in Des Moines, Iowa, where he first started making social comments with his natural drawing talents. Spotting a remark written on the wall in the boys' room, he proceeded to draw a cartoon to go with it." How about The New York Times obit: "Paul drew his first cartoon on the wall of a parochial school boys’ lavatory." On the other hand, it was the Associated Press wire story about his death that re-framed it as merely a joke: "The Times said Conrad later joked that his first political cartoon was a scrawl on the bathroom wall at his elementary school." However, I don't recall seeing this framed as a "joke" prior to the AP obit story. In fact, the Los Angeles Times wrote: "Paul later quipped that his cartooning career began with a drawing scrawled on the restroom wall at St. Augustin Elementary School in Des Moines. At age 8. "I learned that a picture is worth a thousand words," Conrad wrote, "and that, when the Establishment gets mad, they always go after the cartoonist, not the editorial writers." So while this is certainly a "quip", prior to the AP story it was not presented as a "joke", and there are dozens of sources reporting it straight, such as the Scribner Encyclopedia. Even the Library of Congress (French 1999) reported it straight: "He got his start drawing on the bathroom wall in St. Augustine's school in Des Moines, Iowa. He knew better than to write on the bathroom wall, he said. But he did illustrate someone else's editorial comment at age 8". Although I'm not certain, it looks like the LOC is citing Conrad's book, Conartist: 30 Years with the Los Angeles Times (1993) as their source. They go on to cite the full passage, which it appears the Los Angeles Times was referring to in the first place, and it appears to be very serious, not a joke, and Conrad uses it to explain his style. After illustrating the "editorial comment" on the school's bathroom wall, Conrad recalls, he learned four lessons from the experience:

First I learned that one picture is worth a thousand words, and that when the establishment gets mad, they always go after the cartoonist, not the editorial writer! Second, I learned that it takes a big man to laugh at himself and that, tragically, many of the members of the establishment are not very big men. Third, I learned that I could draw cartoons better than any other kid at St. Augustine's, and that people got excited about my drawings. Last, I learned there was deep inside me an urge to say what I thought about life and the establishment to any and all who would look at my drawings. There's too much to be concerned about, and I am a concerned citizen.

I think there must be a happy medium in the center where we can agree. If Conrad has been talking about this "quip" as a historical fact from at least 1993-2010, there's a reason it's been reported as much more than just a "joke". Conrad maintains he got his start as an artist scribbling on the bathroom wall of his school. However, the only source that framed it as a outright "joke" was the AP obit, after the fact. Conrad, however, was quite serious about the experience, funny as it may be. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, sounds good then. I would suggest just changing the source used in the article to one that doesn't frame it as a joke, and make it one wall instead of "walls". Moisejp (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Will do. I'm out the door at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe this point still needs attending to. Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I know. I'll have it done tonight. No need to nag. :) Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "His bronze sculptures of U.S. presidents Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, as well as civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., were featured at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art." The source refers to the museum as ""The Artists' Studio Gallery at The Avenue of the Peninsula" in Rolling Hills Estates, Calif." Just confirming that is the same museum (I know nothing about California museums). Moisejp (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's the wrong source. I'll try and find the right one. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. Temporary source added. I removed some information so that it conforms with the new source, however the old info was correct. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Strike that. Maybe it was wrong. It seems the exhibition occurred in 1979. See Ianco-Starrels, Josine (March 18, 1979). Conrad Cartoons on View at LACMA. Los Angeles Times. "One hundred drawings and six sculptures by Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Paul Conrad are on view, Thursday through May 20, in the County Museum of Art's Contemporary Art Galleries." This means it couldn't include Clinton and Bush, but it's missing one. This missing sculpture is listed here but without access to the exhibition guide (which is listed as a publication in various indexes) I can't say for sure. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Done. I just figured out how to fix this. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Viriditas. We are getting near the end of this process. I will spend some time on the weekend having some last looks, and hopefully we can finish everything off. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is in good shape and I'm passing to GA status. Moisejp (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section[edit]

I want to remove or at least rewrite the first part Conrad was an imposing man with a booming voice as unsourced. I also wanted to change the word "matured" for "grew older" which isn't that big of a deal. Amother edit is showing serious signs of ownship as well as being paranoid. --Malerooster (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Can a citation be included here for review and then added to the article? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The material is properly cited to Rainey 2010 at the end of the paragraph. For the record, this is the third article you've followed me to, and the second during a GA review. That's not paranoia, it's a pattern. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
In any case, your concerns are valid. I've made the following changes in response.[8]Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The citation doesn't support the material exactly as written. The "booming voice" reference was a simile for how he entered a room. The article makes the subject sound more like a "loud mouth" maybe a little harsh. --Malerooster (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no simile in the original citation, so you must have misread it. Can the prose be improved? Possibly, I'll have a look later. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas, there are MULTIPLE uses of similes in the citation, NYT obit, I could pull a few if you like, and I am not even an English major. No big deal though. --Malerooster (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
He had a loud, booming voice. The sources are clear on this. You can even see it in the documentary film and in the multiple interviews he did. The same source says, "The cartoonist, loud and often profane in person..." The loudness might be due to hearing loss from his WWII experience, but that's just speculation on my part. Your claim that these are similes is entirely unsupported. Again: "The courtroom victory only enhanced the image within The Times of Conrad as a towering, practically invulnerable figure. Even his physical presence seemed to confirm that view. Conrad stood 6 feet 2, his large head framed by thick, black-rimmed glasses and his arrival announced in a booming voice...The cartoonist, loud and often profane in person, viewed himself as a champion of the common man and relished combat with those he saw as protectors of the rich and privileged."[9] I have restored the content you removed. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The aim is to make a good article - not to snipe at anyone. I am frequently "followed" by at least one editor who routinely posts snarky stuff about me on other talk pages and to other editors. I try to ignore it. V - unless MR is actually making attacks n you, try accepting his suggestions as being made in good faith. MR - the use of "bs artist" is not gonna help much either. WRT florid language - I tend to believe that even if a source uses florid language that WP is generally better off avoiding it. Remember I tend to be bigger on readability more than on nineteenth century standards of genteel puffery and elucidation. I like neat words in discussions, but they do not generally improve article readability. Collect (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Collect, thank you for your suggestion and measured response. --Malerooster (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sculptures section[edit]

Can this material be covered in one section? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no relationship between discussing a work and having a list. Per MOS:WORKS: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists". I have no idea why you removed this section so I have restored it. It's no different than discussing an album and listing that album in an article about a musician or discussing a book and listing that book in an article about a writer, etc. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You seriously need to check your ownership issues and not just blindly revert my changes. Geesh doesn't even to start to describe your behavior here. And you talk about others growing up? Seriously? --Malerooster (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how your reply addresses this discussion. Again, you've been asked to stop following me from article to article. My behavior is not under discussion here. You've disrupted this GA review by attempting to destabilize it, in the process making a series of poor edits while attempting to inject subtle POV. You've been politely asked to leave and go somewhere else. Why are you still here? Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Because I've delt with your type before. I won't be bullied by you. Your behavior is under discussion now. Grow up or leave the project. Period. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The only problem is, the evidence here shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Your first edit to the talk page was to make accusations and attacks.[10] And here, I was discussing the MOS and you responded with another personal attack[11]. Your bad behavior began after I was participating in a peaceful review with another nominator. Out of the blue, you showed up and started destabilizing the article with deletions and reverts based on your faulty reading comprehension. And this is the third article where you've done this. The evidence clearly shows that you are the one doing the bullying and interfering with constructive peaceful editorial work. Based on this evidence, you need to leave immediately, and you've been asked to leave several times. Please leave. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Asked by whom? You? --Malerooster (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article Paul Conrad. If you would like to talk about editorial behavior instead, you are welcome to visit WP:ANI, where you will find your behavior under discussion in the newest thread at the bottom of the page. Any further off-topic comments about editors here will be automatically archived. Thank you for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Your'e welcome. --Malerooster (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section[edit]

The "controversies" section is not too adequate as it now stands. First of all, it omits the basic fact that while Paul Conrad was overall somewhat liberal, he was also anti-abortion, which was probably what generated most of the controversies. Also, during the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war, he went a little nuts and started drawing things such as a star of David morphing into a Nazi swastika, or Jesus crucified on a star of David. I have no idea if that's what's referred to very obliquely under the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (which was actually the Arab-Israeli conflict at that point); if there were specific flashpoint cartoons, it would be much better to mention them specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The section (and article) doesn't omit anything, and everything is discussed in its proper context. He was not "somewhat" liberal, he was very liberal. The sources do not support your contention that most of the controversies were generated from his anti-abortion stance, and the fact is, he became pro-choice later in life. I agree with you that the article should mention "specific flashpoint cartoons", however, I refrained from doing that because there are so many and because there are so many different interpretations. In at least one example, I was able to split out a subtopic (Chain Reaction (sculpture)) and talk about some of his early nuclear-related cartoons, only because reliable secondary sources discussed them. The IP conflict he illustrated is very complicated, and the loudest voices against his work came from letters to the editor in the Los Angeles Times (we can't write content based on letters to the editor) and from conservative members of the Jewish community who wrote self-published polemics about Conrad and who waged a campaign against his peace sculpture in Beverly Hills. When I examined this literature in depth, I wasn't able to find anything substantial to add. Highlighting several of the IP cartoons while ignoring the hundreds of others felt like undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
First off, the term "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is rather anachronistic when referring to any period before the mid-1980s (and Hezbollah are still not Palestinian today), so I don't really know why you harp on that term by repeating it multiple times. Second, the largest number of controversies (though maybe not the most intense ones) were probably due to his abortion position, so it seems strange that this is not mentioned in the controversies section. Third, I know nothing and care nothing about any of his sculptures, but what I do know very well is that in 1982 a significant proportion of Jewish readers of the LA Times (and not only the "conservative" ones) were disgruntled by what a reasonable person could justifiably perceive as Conrad launching vicious attacks on a symbol of their religion. AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You're implying that his cartoons did not focus on the IP conflict, which the sources assert, but I'm happy to look at it again. For some reason you are obsessing on an alleged issue he criticized between Israel and Lebanon. I'm not sure why you are continuing to claim that the largest controversies had to do with his abortion position. I see zero evidence that is true. Finally, you seem to have confused an attack on a religion with an editorial commentary on the Jewish state of Israel. Criticism of the governmental policies of Israel is not antisemitism. I should also point out that Conrad's cartoons that are critical of Israel represent a very small part of his work. This intense focus on it is highly undue. Through the years, Conrad criticized everyone and everything. It was, after all, his job. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever -- it really doesn't matter what percentage of his cartoons focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict as far as the "controversies" section is concerned. If some of the most intense controversies were about the Arab-Israeli conflict, then that's one of the things that the "controversies" section should cover (just as we have long and detailed Wikipedia articles about airline flights that crash, but not on flights that arrive at their intended destinations uneventfully). And your generic pre-canned boilerplate standardized "criticism of Israel is not antisemitism" mantra has no real relevance to a cartoon showing Jesus being crucified on a Star of David as a response to the 1982 Lebanon war. In that case Conrad was the one who chose to drag in religious symbolism which was heavy-handed at an absolute minimum (heavy-handed religious symbolism which seems to be incoherent and distractingly irrelevant, unless intended to have rather nasty implications, as far as I can tell...). I'm sorry, but I just don't think this article deserves to be rated "good" with respect to the controversies section (or otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to comment on this page at all). -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
AnonMoos, the particular source and controversy referred to in this article concerns Conrad's cartoons beginning in 1987, during the First Intifada. This of course refers to the IP conflict and is not an anachronism as you suggest. You have referred me to an earlier controversy that you personally recall having to do with the 1982 Lebanon War, however, I do not have good sources about such a controversy. Therefore, I can only cover and write where the sources take me. I believe the current statement in the article ("members of the Jewish community of Los Angeles took issue with Conrad's portrayal of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict") is accurate. Considering that Conrad authored tens of thousands of cartoons, it would be undue for me to go into it in any more detail than that, however, I do like your suggestion up above that we should focus on "specific flashpoint cartoons", and in that regard, I can see the possibility of expansion with due weight. In other words, this would involve a more expanded discussion of his most controversial cartoons using our most neutral sources. In that respect, I think I was quite charitable to use Bentsur 2001 as a source for the controversy with the Jewish community, as it allows the reader to find out more about the subject. Beyond that, however, there isn't very much more to go on in this respect, and I believe I gave it the due weight it required. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If your sources mainly cover the post-1985 period, while my memories are of the preceding decade, then that could certainly explain a few things. I'm not indiscriminately anti-Conrad, considering that my favorite editorial cartoon of all time is by Conrad, but I still don't think that the "controversies" section is really adequate. I'm having trouble finding directly relevant sources through general Google searching (though is somewhat relevant) and am not ready to hit the microfilms yet (which might be "original research" anyway). What would really be useful is an archive of Jewish community publications in the LA area in the early 1980s, but if such a thing exists, it's almost certainly not accessible from where I am... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The biggest single "flashpoint" cartoon I turned up in Google searching is probably the April 4th 1982 cartoon, captioned "Palestinian homeland" showing huddled masses confined in Star-of-David-shaped fencing (though I would consider that fairly tame compared to some others I remember). AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I'm working on the Chain Reaction (sculpture) article, and I hope to nominate it to GA status within the next month (but it needs quite a bit of work before then). FWIW, there is relevant information about Conrad's proposal to install the sculpture in Beverly Hills and the response from the Jewish community. If you're interested, there are a few sources out there about this, but I believe the best ones are either behind paywalls or offline. I ran into a Beverly Hills publication a while back (I've got the name archived in Zotero somewhere, it might be the Beverly Hills Courier, I'm not sure) whose archives did not go back that far. However, if you are in the Los Angeles area, you may be able to get a hold of an archival copy. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, I don't know anything about the sculptures and can't say anything about them. What I do have clear memories of is some of the 1982 cartoons, but I'm not in the L.A. area, so am not in a likely position to access paper archives of some of the more specialized publications of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@AnonMoos:. No worries. Since you have expressed interest, I thought it only fair to keep you updated as to my progress. I'm still open to adding more about his cartoons on this page. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section[edit]

The controversies section is unfortunately still misleading and totally inadequate as far as Jewish issues go. As far as I've been able to remember and discover/confirm through Google searching, the most intense controversies were actually connected with the Lebanon war of 1982, which falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict (not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Also, it would be much better if an actual cartoon which created controversy could be specifically described... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)