This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Should the (minor but real) role of Evany (Eugène van Nyverseel) be included? He was Hergé's first collaborator, working with him from the start of Soviets on. According to Goddin ("Lignes de Vie", 2008), he did some very minor work on the Soviets, and took over some of the other work of Hergé (like Totor) to free him to work more fully on Tintin (see also Peeters on him). Fram (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have my doubts about the name of Lucien Peppermans - it is most unusal as a name, whereas Pepermans is quite common. Also, several sources have the Pepermans spelling. For one example, which looks like having some authority, see http://www.objectiftintin.com/whatsnew_Tintin_1103.lasso
Besides, earlier versions of this article do show the Pepermans spelling. I am however not an authority on the matter, nor do I have access to authorative dococuments. Who can confirm or correct? Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, Jan; Midnightblueowl or I will check into it and get back to you. —Prhartcom(talk) 18:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's Pepermans, see e.g. . Peppermans would indeed be quite unusual, it looks as if some Anglophone "corrected" it. Names are always tricky, yesterday I had to correct "Puosette" to "Poussette" on the main Adventures of Tintin article, also a FA. 19:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the Benoît Peeters biography (as translated by Tina A. Kover), it's Peppermans, with the double-p. This of course contrasts with the Pepermans of the Pierre Assouline biography (as translated by Charles Ruas). Given the arguments presented here, I am happy too see Pepermans used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"He later came to regret the poorly researched, propagandist debut story, and prevented its republication until 1973" ?
Is there a source for this statement?
Other of his early cartoons were (re)published after having been re-researched/redrawn (into his more commonly known style) so why would he wait 40 years to republish it not-redrawn/re-researched if he at the same time regretted the original story for its poor quality?
I think the statement needs a proper source in order to remain. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It is contradicted by Hergé, son of Tintin by the usually well-informed Benoit Peeters, who blames the lack of reedition mainly on technical reasons (the original pages apparently were not available to Hergé?) and reluctance at Casterman, while Hergé wanted to republish it (original version or redrawn) long before 1973 or before the pirate version started to appear. So, if this source is correct, it was Casterman that prevented its republication until 1973, not Hergé! Lofficier though basically agrees with the version now in the article, i.e. that it was Hergé who choose not to republish it. Thompson as well agrees with the version of the article. Fram (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. On reflection I also take issue with the unsourced word 'propagandist'. Hergé paints a critical view of several places that Tintin visits, e.g. the native Americans driven away from their homes by US soldiers with bayonets, or the by today's standards out-right racist description of the natives in Congo. These albums are to my knowledge not described with the dismissive word 'propagandist'. So I think that word would also have to be sourced (inline) in order to remain.
You seem to know the relevant sources well, would you consider proposing a new and sourced formulation that you would consider an improvement, or perhaps simply boldly making it? Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)