Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Whaam![edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Theramin[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Most of this was a response to your copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

    • Drowning Girl and Whaam! are both 1963 paintings. Much of the historical context and background supporting the two articles should obviously be similar. He had a 50 year career, but his two most notable works came from 1963. Their articles will share a lot in common. This would not be an issue if we were talking about two paintings from different eras in his career, but these are from the same era and will share context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request[edit]

Issue 1
Ideally, yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • What should we do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
Issue 3

Sources[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Source review v2 - per request, still without spotchecks

Comments from Binksternet[edit]

  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
"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’."[2]
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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.
"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."[3]
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)[reply]
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."[4]
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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."[5]
"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."[6] Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • ""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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                    • 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)[reply]
                      • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • The fact that Dave Gibbons has created his own parody of the painting should be mentioned.
  • 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)[reply]
  • This sentence has problems with clunky flow. It does not need the first instance of the word his: "He practiced anti-aircraft drills in his basic training, and was sent for training as a pilot as part of his army service, but the program was canceled before training started." I think it would flow better if worded like this: He practiced anti-aircraft drills in basic training, then was sent to pilot training but the program was canceled.
  • Accepted as what? "...is now widely accepted."
  • The full United States Senate link is not needed. Only a piped link (Senate) should be shown to the reader, as the context is quite clear.
  • In the style of what? "...and Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings in the style in 1960."
  • The Kanighan mention in the article body is good. Perhaps the caption could expand from "Text balloon of Whaam!" to "Whaam!'s text balloon may have been written by Robert Kanigher."
  • The first time World War II is mentioned it is abbreviated WWII. This should instead be spelled out and wikilinked.
  • "But never saw active combat" is too harsh. How about "but did not see active combat"?
  • What happened between '46 and '58 in Lichtenstein's life? What led him to adapt comics in '58? The reader should be brought briefly up to speed rather than ignoring a gap of 12 years. Later we see he was in abstract expressionism during this time but it would be smoother to introduce the fact in chron order.
    • I have not studied his full bio too much, but keep in mind you are asking what happened in a 12-year period starting 15 years before he became a notable artist. I will see what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • this all looks like starving artist type stuff. Nothing major before 58 I don't think. Themes like Americana, American folk and such not relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is not very well blended into the reading flow—it comes out of nowhere: "It has been observed that the "simplicity and outdatedness [of comics] were ripe for being mocked". Perhaps this bit can be worked in somewhere else.
  • There is redundancy in the sentence about taking military subjects seriously. The summary of the quote and the quote cover the same ground.
  • "In Lichtenstein's painting" should replace " In the final painting", because "final" makes little sense in the flow.
  • Replace "He enumerated" with a colon to tie two sentences together.
  • David McCarthy's comment about "winning hearts and minds" is not something we should tell the reader about. McCarthy got his chronology wrong: the "hearts and minds" concept started in 1964, so Lichtenstein would have known nothing about it when he was creating the artwork. This chronology problem greatly reduces the validity of McCarthy's observation. I hold that the validity is reduced to the point where we should remove all mention. The same problem appears with the McCarthy comparison to Lichtenstein's supposed horror with a "deaths per day" sort of warfare, which again is out of chronology. Both WWII and the Korean War were not given the spin of how many enemy were killed each day—the Vietnam War was the first conflict in which the body count per day was important to the US government and the military as a grisly measure of success (since no other measure could be found). Once again, the chronology is wrong: Lichtenstein painting Whaam! would have known nothing about the kind of war based on body count. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what I'm suggesting is a large reduction in the David McCarthy material—anything having to do with themes that were important during the Vietnam War. Whaam! is not a Vietnam-era painting. Binksternet (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That material disappeared a couple days ago; what remains is a useful comparison of differing styles of combat-themed art created during the Cold War by two WWII veterans. The title of McCarthy's book is after all H.C. Westermann at War: Art and Manhood in Cold War America. I believe our article's earlier anachronism problem was sloppiness on my part, not a problem in the source. Here is what McCarthy says, with my comments added: "By the mid-sixties Westermann was not alone in depicting combat or in his opposition to the war. [a correct statement] Many other artists turned to war as a topical comment on American civilization [e.g. Lichtenstein; note the generic term "war", not "Vietnam War"], and some used their work to picture their disgust with the idea that combat was a contest measured in deaths per day. [this "some" refers to the artist discussed in McCarthy's next paragraph, Edward Kienholz, whose The Eleventh Hour displayed the weekly body count from Vietnam] ... In paintings such as Whaam!—which besides being a comic-book sound effect was also the military acronym for 'winning the hearts and minds' of Vietnamese civilians—an American fighter destroys his opponent..." [McCarthy does not allege that Lichtenstein derived "Whaam!" from "W.H.A.M"; he may merely be pointing out an ironic coincidence] Our article no longer contains any suggestion that Whaam! was a response to the Vietnam War. To clarify the Cold War context I have added some material sourced to Art and War by Laura Brandon. Ewulp (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for FA with regard to prose, MOS, and breadth/depth of the coverage of the topic. I have not looked at referencing or image rationales. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

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)[reply]

(Delegate comment - I have moved the lengthy discussion, which was above to the nomination's Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • "not least by linked by the horizontal smoke trail of the missile"? --John (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...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)[reply]

Comment from Modernist[edit]

Strong oppose pending resolution to Bus Stop's objections, discussion here: [7]...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is very little agreement from other discussants about his issues, they were given little weight. If you agree with all or some of his thoughts please explain what you would like to see done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You may not be familiar with the fact that GrahamColm (talk · contribs), one of the FAC directors moved his 97KB of issues to the FAC talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1. Much of his commentary was ignored by me the nominator because the other discussants disagreed with most of it. Read the full 97KB before standing so strongly behind this oppose. After a FAC director cast his comments aside, you found him seeking an audience at the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read most of his comments here and on the talk page - the gist is he objects to discussion regarding Lichtenstein's relationship to his comicbook sources - in general - and thinks those general discussions belong to the Roy Lichtenstein biography and/or the Appropriation article. Bus Stop is not a troll and his issues cannot be swept under the rug...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read the 97k, then show some eveidence by resonding to the actual points that have been made. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that all discussion regarding Roy's sources for this painting ("Whaam!) be included; while general discussion of Lichtenstein's relationship to comic book artists and comic book art (in general) be added to his biography and not be included here - This is an article about a specific painting (albeit part of a group of 'War' paintings), but not part of a specific series...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response. This article falls under WP:WPVA, WP:MILHIST and WP:COMICS. Most of the content that you, Modernist (talk · contribs), and Bus stop (talk · contribs) as WPVA members are objecting to is content that has been encouraged by COMICS members Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and Hiding (talk · contribs). To me it seems like some general context is relevant for an article. This is the first controversial article that I have ever tried to promote. Have you considered the COMICS opposition, what they call the commercial art perspective? I am fairly sure you will say you have so I guess I shall ask if you could clarify the broad elements that you would like to see moved more specifically. Are you talking about all of Whaam!#General_context, some of that section or more than that?---TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that section is not needed. This is about the painting specifically. Roy was a painter he wasn't a cartoonist...Modernist (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody's made the slightlest attempt to paint Lichtenstein as a cartoonist. What's your point? That context is bunk? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is Lichtenstein is an important painter - if you want context - use the artworld of the 1960s when Abstract Expressionism was waning, and Minimalism, Hard-Edge Painting, Color Field painting and Pop Art was on the rise. No one was looking at the comic books; since you brought it up...Modernist (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble reading this response as anything but a bizarre non sequitur. How is this an argument from removing context? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you just don't have a clue...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect the Tate or the CAI to add to discussions in every single painting Lichtenstein's relationship to commercial sources in general. Specific sources for this painting are enough...Modernist (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you disagree with the weight given to those sources by multiple RSes? Please read those multiple RSes before responding, or we'll just go through this whole ridiculous treadmill yet again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do think the "General context" section is way overdone and should be severely reduced, and possibly merged into another section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good. Please let me know what elements of that should be moved to the bio, since it is you and Hiding that I have included this for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if we start by moving the 1st and 3rd paragraph to the bio? That is about half of the content? (Directed at Curly Turkey and Hiding).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made my comments clear - I think the General context section can be removed.... reduced here to a couple of sentences the entire section or one like it can be added to the biography, and linked here...Modernist (talk) 21:57 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be made clear that most of the content of that section wasn't there when Bus Stop was making his comments. Bus Stop's comments did not refer to most of what is in that section now. He clearly stated he wanted all context to do with attribution issues removed (but you read the 97k, so you know this, right?). Read the BBC, Gravett, and Priego sources. They spend paragraph after paragraph talking about exactly those issues in the context of this painting.
So answer these questions:
  1. Do you think context is bunk?
  2. Do you think it's still bunk even when multiple sources obsess over it?
  3. Can you be bothered to read the sources?
  4. Have you read any of the arguments to keep the contextual material at all?
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just responded to some sources presented in the discussion this weekend, which expanded this section. It seemed like there was a lot of agreement that the Priego content would be beneficial. Most of the other stuff was just links Hiding was pointing to but by people who are notable enough to have WP bios. Would be glad to move some of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These sources, often the case when analyzing an artist or a specific creator, are focusing on one work and then stating the same principles apply to a range of works by that creator. That's a very common writing style, but one must not be confused that it emphasizes the example picked over that issues on the creator. This is not to say that any of the Gravett source should be used at Whaam! as to call out the specifics noted, but that the broader strokes about Ray's work that Gravett and the other sources cover using Whaam! as the example are all sources that are much better suited for that discussion at Ray's article, not Whaam!. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, most of the stuff that's recently been included shouldn't have. As I point out below, Bus Stop wasn't objecting to that—he couldn't have, as it wasn't in the article yet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My answer stands - my comments stand - I don't answer to you! WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your objection remains vague and unactionable, and thus can safely be ignored. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree on Bus Stop and Modernist's opposes here. The sections on "Background" and "General Context" are far too broad (covering all of Ray's comic-inspired works with very little specificity on Whaam! outside a few name-drop examples) that makes this article unfocused - failing WP:WIAFA#4 on length (regarding focus). Those sections should of course not be lost but brought into the article on Ray himself, and this article can call out (even with {{see also}} links) to the appropriate sections and a brief 2-3 paragraph about how Whaam! falls into these comic works and issues around them (necessary info to understand the "Description" section). The article without these sections still is a quality article, and far from in danger of being non-notable, but it shouldn't be considered Featured if it has these two bulky sections that are not specific to the picture. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good to have a strong opinion about the content from a non-WP:WPVA and non-WP:COMICS person.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem: The "General context" section wasn't what Bus Stop objected to—he couldn't have, as almost none of it was there during the discussion that has been archived. What he objected to was including anything to do with attribution issues—which he characterized as "out of left field" (a direct quote).
It appears, Masem, that you actually support my position: culling the ugly beast that the "General context" section has bloated into, and summarizing the attribution issues (you say 2–3 paragraphs; I actually thought a couple of sentences would suffice). By supporting this position, you are positioning yourself in opposition to Bus Stop's position.
Modernist's postition? I have no idea. All I see is non sequiturs and refusals to answer direct questions. Feel free to support that if you wish. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is - you don't have to understand my position. Just as long as Tony does...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is, you continue to make comments that contribute nothing to the improvement of the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I read through the past (moved Bus Stop discussion) to some extent but didn't realize that bloated the article. I agree trimming it down to introduce the broader concepts of Ray's attribution and broader issues, in light of being able to discuss Whaam!. I oppose the current version (to wit, what I see here), and believe that it can be trimmed to focus on Whaam! and bringing in the key issues (and I do agree maybe 2-3 para is too much even, but you get my point). I think the way I got confused was due to how Bus Stop posed this on the VPP for attention. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I object to the general content section. I also object to the way Bus Stop has been bullied. Let's be clear - this is Tony's nomination by the way; I clearly stated my objection is to the redundant referrals to comic book art in general that do not specifically address the painting Whaam!...Modernist (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying? Check out the browbeating (on the talk page) Bus Stop gave Tony for soliciting editor feedback from Peer Review, which he then proceeded to take to an unrelated ANI (where he calls Peer Review "outsourcing" editing, and tries to make look like some giant crime). Even after being told by an admin it had nothing to do with the open ANI, he continued the browbeating. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Material for inclusion in this article ideally should be sourced to the painting that this article is about. Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should "ideally" not pretend that sources don't exist when multiple sources have not only been pointed out several times by several other editors but have been extensively quoted (many of the quotes are now archived on the talk page with the rest of Bus Stop's filibuster). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should ideally be including material in this article that is supported by sources that mention by name the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the sources being used are broad strokes about Ray's work, using Whaam as the example. We can put some details out from those to discuss here in light of Whaam, but the broader issues should be on Ray's article to keep this article focused on Whaam! and not a larger critical nature of Ray's work. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we summarize the issues. Which is what I've proposed repeatedly, but Bus Stop was hardline opposed to it, while claiming the sources cited didn't exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this edit removed some of another editor's post, or maybe two editors posted at the same time. I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a poorly resolved edit conflict to me. On that note, in these discussions is it not proper to strike out comments when we change our minds rather than rewrite them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has really responded to me about what to do with the General Context section other than Modernist who says to axe the whole thing. Others above are discussing 2-3 paragraphs or 2-3 sentences. I have cut it to 2 paragraphs. Have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of different ideas. One is that the two paragraphs could be moved to the "Reception" section, which I'd rename to "Reception and legacy" to accommodate it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got EC'd but this is my suggestion too. I think Ray's article needs reorg to highlight these issues there (possibly a separation section on his overall criticism, including one on appropriation) but that's not an issue for this article to proceed, just that we know we can broadly talk those issues on the artist's page. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Tony, move the entire section to Roy's biography it doesn't belong in this article...Modernist (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the section again? It's already been gutted. You're not seriously suggesting moving the paragraph on Novick and Lichtenstein in the army out of the article are you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I am saying - it adds nothing of value to this article which is about the painting done and exhibited in the early 60s; it's nasty and is irrelevant and can be moved to the biography, if needed at all....Modernist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the source of this specific painting, not about Lichtenstein's work in general. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also want to remove the Gibbons stuff, even though it's specifically about this painting, and was quoted in multiple RSes, including the BBC? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it isn't about this painting, but it is about this painting as a demonstration of Lichtenstein's larger body of work. This doesn't mean the source or info from it doesn't belong here, but we shouldn't be going on a tangent talking about Lichtensteins' overall reception on this article about one specific article. The way to read those sources is that they are "name dropping" Whaam as an example, but that doesn't mean the article is dedicated to Whaam. We have to balance what that source is trying to do with what its purpose is here. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A quick summary of the work's reception as a part of the artist's overall oeuvre is exactly what I would expect to see as part of the article. Further, this particular painting is "namedropped" precisely because it is such a prominent painting—it plays a central in the artist's overall reception. I'd also dispute that, say, Priego's piece is merely "namedropping" Whaam! when it talks about the attribution issues. Gibbons followed up his criticism with another reimagining of the same panel—that's too remarkably specific Gibbons' criticism to be considered a "namedrop". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's innuendo and basically irrelevant, that just takes up space, it is not needed...Modernist (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbons is "innuendo"? In what way? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, the Novick stuff is quoted by two authors in three academic sources (not the popular press), so I think they carry more weight than your opinion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not your article, nor have you nominated it here for FA, and in my opinion the information is not needed in the article...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to demonstrate to the multiple editors who support having it that multiply-sourced information should be removed, not to strong oppose because YOUDONTLIKEIT. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys lets try to keep a level head. Lichtenstein painted for about 50 years. From 1962-64, he did war comics and for a slightly longer period he did romance comics. For a reader of any specific war comic to understand its context some perspective on this period must be presented. We do not expect the reader of this article to be an expert on Lichtenstein and know how to contextualize this work in regards to Lichtenstein's career. We need to explain to the reader the things about this period in his career that will help him understand this work through context. Although all of the formerly 4 paragraph general context may belong in Lichtenstein, a summary of those concerns should be presented here to add breadth to the understanding of this work in the context of Lichtenstein's career. I am seeing remaining context that relates to Whaam! and am fairly certain some of it should stay. I think people are viewing this as deleting/keeping content is a win for one side. These two paragraphs both mention Whaam! and I would like some help winnowing out the most germane elements of the remaining content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modernist, I think you are quite riled up right now to the point where you will tell me to delete anything the COMICS guys want and Curly you are antagonizing him. As I look at the first of the two paragraphs in general context I see content that says "Lichtenstein's works were somewhat frowned upon in some circles for specific reasons and Whaam! is a prime example of this." That is my interpretation of the first paragraph. What I need is help from the two of you to distill this element of that content. You two having a verbal paintball war at this discussion does not help me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry you feel that way, Tony. I'm certainly not trying to antagonize anyone. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a balance issue, we're not talking about wiping out sections wholesale. I agree the reader needs to understand that Whaam! is a result of Lichtenstein's '62-64 period. However, much of what is in "Background" is at a level of detail appropriate for the Lichtenstein article. We have blue-links for a reason so that if a reader needs to learn more they can click through. So we can reduce "Background" to a paragraph that leads off the "History" section, with the paragraph focused tightly on this work being from that period. The stuff about being in the Army, or the stuff about comics as art, is extraneous here, but perfectly suited to the main artist article. Similarly with the General Context stuff. It's not about deleting it, but balancing it given this article is about the specific piece of art and not the artist in general. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "we're not talking about wiping out sections wholesale"—actually, that's exactly what Bus Stop and now Modernist are suggesting. Quote (Modernist): "That's exactly what I am saying - it adds nothing of value to this article ..." We were making a lot of progress with this article until this pair decided they wanted certain portions of it censored. Balance is not what they are striving for. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand that if WPVA had their way the article would omit COMICS' viewpoint. However, we have to get you two talking sensibly. We may never get to a point where WPVA says a featured article on this topic can include COMICS viewpoints, you need to tone down your approach. His "it adds nothing of value" surely was in part spurred on by your attitude. He also said it was "nasty and irrelevant". If this has any chance of getting through it will be with cogent discourse. I have dialogued with Modernist on many occasions. We have him at the table. I am interpretting his strong oppose as more of an objection to the treatment of Bus stop who has been well mannered enough not to knee-jerk oppose himself. As lengthy and almost tedious as Bus stops comments were they were in very good faith, which is quite commendable. Even when his comments got wiped away, he did not retaliate with an oppose. He is trying to be heard and Modernist is now carrying that torch. Modernist is more concise, which for me is better and I have a history with him. Reading Modernist's commentary now makes me feel I must get a better dialogue going. He is almost always quite precise and I don't feel "nasty and irrelevant" would have come from him if he were not spurred. We have a long way to go, but the best chance to get the WPVA approval is with them at the table, but not wearing others down. I am busy tomorrow morning, but hope that we can begin to make progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem, do you agree with my one sentence interpretation of the first paragraph in the general context section ("Lichtenstein's works were somewhat frowned upon in some circles for specific reasons and Whaam! is a prime example of this."). What should we present to the reader to convey this information?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modernist, in general you are suppose to present favorable and unfavorable content for proper breadth. In order for this to ever get to FA, you are going to have to relent that COMICS folks have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lichtenstein (much of which they feel this painting exemplifies) and its entirety can not be excised. You need to help me figure out what bad COMICS stuff is most important to broaden the high art perspective rather than saying just axe all the COMICS stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming we can link to a more detailed discussion on Lichtenstein's article, I would consider that a reasonable summary, though language-wise, I'd flip it to the Whaam angle than Lichtenstein: (read: putting it into context of the painting as the article subject instead of approaching it from the Lichtenstein angle). That is, that first para of General Context can be summariezed as a sentence in "Negative" "Reception", along the lines of "Whaam! is considered a prime example of Lichtenstein's works that borrow elements from other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists.", and linking to the reader to a more detailed discussion of this concept. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now we are making progress. I am going offline for a bit. I will come back to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is something I've had in the back of my mind, but have been waiting for the "issues" to die down first, but since it's come up: I think it would be best to drop the "Negative" and "Positive" subsections. They're a little too artifical and black-and white. Dropping the subsection titles would allow for a number of improvements:
              1. contrasting views could be presented together, which would make the issues clearer and be more interesting reading.
              2. It would give more editorial leeway in organizing the information.
              3. Certain issues such as attribution are not necessarily "Negative"—raising concerns about such issues is not a negative comment on the artwork per se, but on the artist (although Gibbons condemns both, they're not the same thing).
              4. It wouldn't unduly attract attention to the "Negative" side of the argument.
                ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside of the scope of this article: "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." Similarly this in the lead is outside of the scope of this article: "Lichtenstein has drawn criticism for not giving credit or compensation to the artists from whose works the painting's composition was derived. 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 as high art." This does not belong in this article. This is not an article about Lichtenstein's work in general. This is an article about an individual painting. I suggest removing those two blocks of text. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be brief because I have an appointment in just over an hour. Here is the rub. The COMICS guys have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lichtenstein in general. These are both general comments. However, the COMICS guys think (as I understand it) that Whaam! is almost the definitive example of these general ideas. Think about it. What painting did Gibbons parody? Where did the BBC4 interview take place? The WPVA guys are not hearing the COMICS guys who are saying "These are our general thoughts on Lichtenstein and this is our case in point" WPVA guys, please think about that. I repeat again. "These are our general thoughts on Lichtenstein and this is our case in point" You can not eliminate these very general thoughts in this situation. General thoughts yes, but probably appropriate in this article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being "outside of the scope of this article", I would consider the information in the first sentence (not necessarily this wording) to be part of the minimum context necessary to understand the work. If this article is to be a TFA (Tony's aiming for the upcoming 50th anniversary), one cannot assume the readers will have any knowledge of Lichtenstein. I don't understand this resistance to providing sufficient context. An "article about an individual painting" requires context. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that one needs a brief intro for who Lichtenstein is, but checking other FA articles on artwork, the details should be laser-guided focused on how that background (not just artist but any art movement at the time) impacted the work so that the reader is being guided right towards the "History" section on how this artwork came about. As how "Background" reads presently, it is very meandering and feels like more a bio than anything else, which is why it feels clunky. (Contrast this to Drowning Girl's Background which I feel is a much more readable section). I will note that that "General COntext" section in "Drowning Girl" suffers the same problem here - all that should be a section in Lichtenstein's own article, and the reception section should briefly summarize it while pointing the reader to it. I will note that no single Wikiproject necessarily has any more weight over others in terms of what content needs to be present and consensus (like this) is used to resolve when there are irreconcilable differences between the two projects. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—you say "I will note that no single Wikiproject necessarily has any more weight over others in terms of what content needs to be present"[8]. It is not so much a matter of Wikiprojects but rather logical significance. Lichtenstein was a fine artist. That is first and foremost. He worked in an abstract expressionistic vein in his early endeavors. The target audience for his output were gallery goers, art museum attendees, and art collectors. The primary orientation of this article therefore should be to the world of fine art. Were there a copyright infringement lawsuit, that would be worth noting. But there is little justification for more than a cursory representation of the supposed complaints emanating from a hypothetical comic book crowd. Dave Gibbons is represented in our article. He gets to say that "this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'." It has to be pointed out how unenlightening that comment is. Does it shed light on this painting? I can't see how it does. But it is technically within the scope of this article, so it can be included. But there is nothing special about that comment. There are hallmarks of the origins of imagery. Appropriation preserves those hallmarks; it doesn't try to hide them. Dave Gibbons is stating the obvious. Contrast that with comments by art historian Richard Morphet. He writes: "Perhaps the immediate impact of Whaam! makes some viewers equate instantaneity with superficiality, as if there is nothing more to the work than what can be taken in at a glance. In fact, though, its very boldness is an ingredient of its complexity." Morphet goes on to say: "Lichtenstein’s image was striking in terms of its grandeur, its composition, and its colour." And Morphet continues: "It seemed to address at the same time history painting, Baroque extravagance, and the quotidian phenomenon of mass-circulation comic strips."[9] These are insightful comments from the correct orientation. The painting fits most logically into the world of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, keep in mind that Masem, represents the common reader here. He is not a comics person. His reading of the comics side seems to be that something is there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—you say "Bus stop, keep in mind that Masem, represents the common reader here. He is not a comics person. His reading of the comics side seems to be that something is there."[10] What is "the comics side", and can you please quote from Masem his supposed representation of "the comics side"? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only a passing interest in comics, and absolutely no interest in MILHIST or the art projects; my interest in this article only extends from a possible non-free issue aspect that has been amicably resolved. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think you're forgetting Binksternet's contributions. He makes no mention of comics on his userpage, and isn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Participants. He's gone as far as finding multiple new sources for the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Binksternet is also not affiliated with either WPVA or COMICS, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly, We have a starting point for summarizing paragraph 1 of the general context section as "Whaam! is considered a prime example of Lichtenstein's works that borrow elements from other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists." Can you comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes off worded fairly strongly. The accusations of plagiarism need to be balanced: Sooke's points were good, as is Priego's point about the original artists' anonymity. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the Sooke article: "“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." So such accusations are not limited to the "comics people", nor are they recent. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same article: "Fifty years ago, in the same year that Lichtenstein painted Whaam!, an art historian called Erle Loran attacked him in an article headlined “Pop Artists or Copy Cats?” Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all." So can we stop characterizing this stuff as recentism or limited to the comics crowd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—this is out of the scope of this article. This article is not about "other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists."[11] Assertions made in this article should be sourced to the painting named in the title of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some who allege that there is impropriety in the sourcing of imagery in Whaam, but there is the complete absence of any lawsuit for copyright infringement. See this edit. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read Gibbons' comments. Never does he accuse Lichtenstein of plagiarism (a legal problem), but of not crediting the artist he "swiped" from (an ethical problem). An "absence of any lawsuit" is a red herring. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though the BBC article brings up "plagiarism", it's not characterized as coming from the comics crowd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever mentioned a "comics crowd". This is just an article on a painting. But the question is: What is a painting? It is an object of fine art. This doesn't mean that a comic book artist can't have an opinion to express. But I think we exercise editorial discretion as to how extensively we cover the comments from various quarters. I feel that the world of fine art might be able to provide worthwhile commentary. I'm not saying that a comic book artist is incapable of providing commentary on a painting that fits into the world of art galleries, art museums, and art collections, but just that we should judge all commentary for its value to the article. This is simply editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is a painting? It is an object of fine art." A vacuous, black-and-white statement. Of course there is no lack of paintings that fail the criteria to be "fine art" by any definition. Of course there are paintings meant to be commercial art with no fine art aspirations. Of course there are works that straddle the line between high & low, and that people will vigorously debate about long after our great-gradnchildren have passed on.
  • Please familiarize yourself with the Featured article criteria, particularly 1(b): "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" (bold in the original). A work has a context: what was the cultural situation out of which it sprang? What were the short- and long-term reactions to it? What is its significance in its subculture, and in the culture at large? A work does not exist in a vacuum.
  • If you "feel that the world of fine art might be able to provide worthwhile commentary", then the solution is to track down the sources and add them, not to remove material that you personally don't like.
——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, and the art world is full of a lot of strange stuff, and those interested in art certainly do not always agree with one another. We try to write good quality articles, and this remains in the final analysis an article about a work of art that has been displayed in art galleries and museums. It has aroused a lot of controversy from various quarters and this has produced commentary—some illuminating, and some less so. The complaint that the painting Whaam! looks like a comic book, while an apt observation, does not provide insight. It is just my opinion that the average reader perusing this article has questions, such as how does this painting relate to the history of art? That sort of information is likely to come from someone steeped in the world of fine art. It could come from a comic book artist. I'm just saying that insightful commentary is more likely to come from for instance those who habitually write about art. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're really struggling with the whole idea of comprehensiveness, aren't you?
  • "The complaint that the painting Whaam! looks like a comic book" Who "complained" that the painting "looks like a comic book"?
  • "average reader perusing this article has questions, such as how does this painting relate to the history of art" and how it relates to the culture outside of the world of art. A work of art has a historical and cultural context, and cannot be comprehended outside of that context. Context contributes significantly, often overwhelmingly, to an artwork's meaning.
  • Not everything in the article should be strictly about the meaning of the painting. Its impact on the culture around it is an important part of the painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—Yes, I think a worthwhile aim is the placing of the painting Whaam! into the context of the history of art,[12] according to reliable sources, of course. This is in the article: "It seemed to address at the same time history painting, Baroque extravagance, and the quotidian phenomenon of mass-circulation comic strips."[13] That is by Richard Morphet who is an art historian. That material was originally added to the article by me but it has been edited by others since. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not bring it up somewhere here? I don't know the circumstances under which it was edited out, but I assume it was either a mistake, or it was added in an inappropriate place. You could start a new "Comments by Bus Stop" section that addresses point-by-point the sourced information you think should be added. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the article. It is at the end of the History section. What I meant was that my original wording was altered. But this is Wikipedia. I think the subsequent edit represents an improvement to my clunky wording. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, there is no requirement for what you are looking for, those you are right that going too far into the broader claims about Lichtenstein's so-called appropriation is inappropriate for this article. But, it is clear from the sourcing (my read of them) that talking about Whaam! and not at least dropping a line (with a blue link to Lichtenstein's article on the appropriation claims) is missing out on an important facet of Whaam!. To not mention in one sentence how Whaam! is treated as the prime example of this claimed appropriation is not fully covering Whaam! But more than a sentence or two, and we're beyond scope. There's a median solution here that I'm easily seeing, not any "must be in" or "must not be covered" extreme. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—have you seen this edit? I am saying in that edit that some allege impropriety of image sourcing. Isn't that what the allegations are? Is there alternative language that is preferable? Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad edit. It's more than just a copyright issue or whether it was legally tried, but even attribution (as I understand the sources). The prior statement accurately covered all the facets of this concept of appropriation by Lichtenstein and appears appropriately sourced. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the solution I first proposed to Bus Stop, all those moons ago. He still claims these "sources" you speak of don't actually exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—what is this edit summary in reference to? Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—it means you made an edit favourable to your POV while we were in the middle of discussing it. You did the same once before, and were reverted for it then, too. Plaese wait until consensus has been reached before making edits that you are fully aware are contentious and are under active discussion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not been "told" anything of the sort, and you are not linking to anything confirming your assertion. Again, this is your edit summary: "(Undid revision 566643248 by Bus stop (talk) Bus Stop, you've been told before to cut this behaviour out.)" Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous contentious edit you made, and here is Tony reverting you with the edit comment: "Undid revision 566291072 by Bus stop (talk) You are currently being disputed by other FAC respondents such as User:Hiding, User:Curly Turkey and myself". Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—in the future please don't leave edit summaries which mention me and mislead or misconstrue. This is a question of common courtesy. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—I didn't, and I don't. In the future, please refrain from being distruptive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support remove my support - in good conscience there are still too many problems...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Oppose per John - WP:ENGVAR and Binksternet - Vietnam!(???) McCarthy seems off the mark, - and over exaggerated phrases like this - one of his most influential works along with Drowning Girl and Look Mickey - misconstrued reading of that reference; and this - paying art dealer Ileana Sonnabend £4,665 (she asked for less) - and the '67 show was an exhibition not a retrospective - please see the reference - Needs serious revisions...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking this balance is very difficult. I hope not to make my collegues at WP:WPVA feel betrayed. Can you tell me what directions the article has taken that you find troubling.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll read the whole article through again later today...Modernist (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbons image[edit]

I could've sworn we removed the image because the article was already filled up with FU images, and since it didn't contribute directly to the understanding of the painting, it fell outside of the Non-free use rationale guideline. Given that there are those who think Gibbons' view is overrepresented already, this seems like a pretty contentious thing to do.

If it's going to be kept, there are a few more things to keep in mind:

  • According to MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." It appears the image has been moved.
  • The image should be placed along with the text on Gibbons, rather than just at a convenient location in the section.
  • Many editors frown upon forcing the image size, as it overrides user settings.

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • After removing so much commercial arts perspective to the bio article, I thought this was one of the best direct commentaries on Whaam! from the commercial arts perspective. It is also sort of a give back to the commercial arts guys to make sure I did not get opposes for removing so much content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this weren't Wikipedia, I'd totally agree. It's a copyright/fair use issue. Do you think it'll pass an image review? If you do, keep it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It will be up to the reviewer. He may say remove it. It is not going to cause the nomination to fail. It may just cause a delay by a day or two as we debate the merits and then remove or keep. If you can bolster its relevance feel free to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I won't debate it—I think it's interesting and adds to the article, especially in a long, otherwise-unillustrated section. I only brought it up because I've been asked to remove FU images before that deemed inessential, and this one seemed to me to fail the "essential" test. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop's disruptive editing[edit]

Check out this, in which Bus Stop changes:

Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism. Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"

to:

Alastair Smart, critic for the Daily Telegraph, observes that Lichtenstein is best known for "narrative scenes". Smart notes that while Whaam! is derived from "an American war comic", its size rivals that of the large paintings common to Abstract expressionism. Smart claims that the painting may be notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene".

Here's the actual Smart review. In particular, Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly.

Bus stop has been told twice before to quit this self-serving style of editing, reverted by TonyTheTiger here and by myself here.

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Curly Turkey—why are you reverting me here? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly explained above. You are distorting the source in a clearly self-serving way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my edit wasn't "self-serving"[14]. Not in the least bit. Let me explain. Personally, I would leave off the wording relating to "incendiary impact", just as I have eliminated the wording relating to "disparaging review". These are value judgements. The reader is not educated by thumbs up/thumbs down commentary. But the wording concerning "incendiary impact" was already there, and I hesitate to alter another editor's ideas without sufficient reason. Secondly I had a problem with the word "mimic". It is hard to know whether the word is being used in the sense of making fun of Abstract expressionism or merely referencing it. I understand that the source uses the word "mimic". But I think the source really means to merely say that the size of Lichtenstein's Whaam!" is "reminiscent" of the large proportions of many Abstract expressionistic paintings. A third reason for my edit is that I wanted our wording to capture the observation by Alastair Smart that Lichtenstein is known for "narrative scenes". This is important. Please read this: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books." In the first sentence of my edit I wrote: "Alastair Smart, critic for the Daily Telegraph, observes that Lichtenstein is best known for "narrative scenes"." Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you calling this section "Bus Stop's disruptive editing"? Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity here. Bus Stop cherrypicked phrases from the article and placed them out of context in a deliberate attempt to distort a negative review into something entirely supportive, while removing from the article all language unfavourable to the subject—even though the source was a negative review. Bus Stop's outlandish distortions do not in any way reflect what the author of the source wrote, even when directly quoting (!!!) the author's words. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey—you say "There is no ambiguity here."[15] There is no ambiguity where? There is no ambiguity in what Alastair Smart writes in this article? Or there is no ambiguity in your interpretation of my edit here? You say "Bus Stop cherrypicked phrases from the article and placed them out of context in a deliberate attempt to distort a negative review into something entirely supportive, while removing from the article all language unfavourable to the subject—even though the source was a negative review." Why would I want to distort a negative review into a positive review? First of all, I couldn't care less about positive reviews and negative reviews. Do you think the average reader of Wikipedia is familiar with Alastair Smart? I couldn't care less about promoting or disparaging the work of Roy Lichtenstein. I look for insightful commentary. In my edit, one of the things I did was remove the words "disparaging review". I didn't remove it because I wanted to turn the review into a positive review. I removed it because in my opinion it is highly irrelevant. Do you think the reader has a meter with a plus and a minus side to it? Is the reader weighing positive comments against negative comments as they are reading this article? A reader wants insights into the painting. The painting has piqued their interest. They want to know why this is considered by some to be an important painting. In my opinion Alastair Smart supplied two very important clues. One clue was the approximate equivalency in size between Whaam! and the average abstract expressionistic painting. The other clue concerns "narrative scenes". In my opinion Alastair Smart correctly notes Lichtenstein's abilities in creating "narrative scenes". You make a big fuss about the way my edit handled the term "incendiary impact". If I were starting from scratch I would never include that phrase. I only included it because it was already there. It is merely fanciful. The depicted aircraft are causing "incendiary impact" and Lichtenstein's paintings are causing "incendiary impact". You say "Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly."[16] Again, I don't care about positive statements and negative statements. Should we reduce the article to columns of plusses and minuses? Of course not. In my opinion we should edit this article to try to shed light on the painting Whaam!
If you think that I have made any sense, why don't you try to edit some of my ideas into the article? They are of course actually Alastair Smart's ideas. He says: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books."[17] In Smart's article, it is the first sentence in a paragraph. Can we just quote that sentence in our article?
Do you think you could change the title of this section to something neutral instead of "Bus Stop's disruptive editing"? Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I look for insightful commentary." No, you cherrypick what you either agree with or can distort to serve your own ends, and remove what you disagree with, even after being told to stop.
"Should we reduce the article to columns of plusses and minuses?" Strawman alert. Nobody has come even remotely close to suggesting anything like this; in fact, I was the one who suggested dropping the "Positive" and "Negative" subsections from the "Reception" section. Nobody disagreed.
"Do you think you could change the title of this section to something neutral instead of "Bus Stop's disruptive editing"?" No. If Bus Stop weren't disruptively editing, this section wouldn't even exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just want to argue, so you are on your own with that one. Bus stop (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're hardly one to accuse people of "just wanting to argue", Bus Stop—especially after your relentless multiforum browbeating of Tony over the Peer Review stuff.
Anyways, you've been caught with your pants down. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is the entire paragraph that we are discussing, appearing in the Daily Telegraph, and written by critic Alastair Smart:

"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene."[18]

My contention, now as before, is that the first sentence is of importance to our article on Whaam!. That sentence reads:

"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books."

I think the above sentence provides insightful commentary on the painting Whaam!. I think it would not be a bad idea to include something from that sentence in our article. I actually think it would be a good idea to include the whole sentence, as a relatively brief quote.

Telling the reader that Alastair Smart's review was a "disparaging review" doesn't provide the reader with all that much information, at least not in this instance. Furthermore—was the review unrelentingly disparaging? I think it is an affirmative statement to say that Lichtenstein is best known for his narrative scenes. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the transparent pretenses—you've been caught with your pants down, and this is all just rationalizing. The passage you obliterated explained briefly what was "disparaging" about the review. Reading the actual article, and not your cherry-picked out-of-context phrases, confirms this. You changed the entire character of the passage while you were in the middle of a content dispute. If now (after the fact) you think some of these cherry-picked tidbits could profitably be worked into the article, you could try to get a consensus behind them here, where it could be discussed where they'd more appropriately be placed (if at all)—of course, text-source integrity demands that the article must be saying what the source is saying, so "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" cannot be put in a different light than it was in the source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my changes. There was more than one reason for the edit I made. You say that I "changed the entire character of the passage while you were in the middle of a content dispute". No, my displeasure with the assertions derived from the "Daily Telegraph" paragraph in an article written by Alastair Smart, quoted in full above, go all the way back to July 17, 2013. Please note this edit, this edit, and this edit. You should really get over regarding me as a "troll", and you really should change the section title here to something other than "Bus Stop's disruptive editing". You can disagree with me and we can discuss our disagreements. Getting back to what I was saying—there was more than one reason for the edit I made here (a few hours ago). You reverted me shortly thereafter with this edit. There are and have been all along certain things bothering me about the wording that is in fact presently in the article, and which of course have been derived from one paragraph by Alastair Smart. The first sentence presently in our article reads: "Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism." There is more than one problem with that sentence. The lesser problem is the linking of "disparaging review" with "attempt to mimic abstract expressionism". If Alastair Smart calls attention to an "attempt to mimic abstract expressionism", would that be disparagement? Maybe, but maybe not. But the greater problem with that sentence is the use of the word "mimic". I am fully aware that this is the exact word that Alastair Smart uses. But its use in our article implies that Lichtenstein was mimicking in the sense of making fun of abstract expressionism in his use of a large canvas. I think that all that Alastair Smart is implying by the use of mimicking is that the size of the Lichtenstein canvas calls to mind the size of the abstract expressionist's canvas. Even if Alastair Smart does mean making fun of in his use of mimic, he is not making a strong point of that. When you string together an entire sentence reading "Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism" it sounds like an important aspect of the painting is the making fun of abstract expressionism. I would guess that this is not an important aspect of the painting but rather a minor aspect if an aspect at all. I also altered, or rather completely removed the second and last sentence. It read, and still reads: "Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"." I consider the phrase "incendiary impact" of very little importance. I view that phrase as little more than a writer's literary flourish. It is a colorful way of speaking. But it is more for entertainment value than to serve any other purpose. Here again is what the original Alastair Smart paragraph says:
"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene."
The colorful imagery in that paragraph starts out with reference to "blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion". The use of "incendiary impact" in the last sentence is in my opinion merely a literary device. It is merely an echoing of imagery invoked in a previous sentence. You are expressing that you are very concerned with Alastair Smart's intended significance in his use of the term "incendiary impact". You say above, about my edit: "In particular, Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly." I don't care if it is positive or negative, but how have I changed it from a disparaging reference to a positive statement? Yes, I changed the sentence to read: "Smart claims that the painting may be notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"." It previously had read: "Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"." Your argument with me is baffling. What is the meaning of "incendiary impact on the US art scene"? You apparently consider this "disparaging". Isn't it possible that this is a complimentary reference? If Lichtenstein displaces all other artists with his new form of painting, might that not be referenced as "incendiary impact"? Again—I merely reinserted the reference to "incendiary impact" because a previous editor apparently felt it worth including. By the way, you did not have to completely revert my edit. You could have made another edit to change that which you did not like in my edit. That is less confrontational and it allows the article to evolve.
Finally, as I've explained before, I wanted to include that Alastair Smart considers that Lichtenstein is "best known" for his "narrative scenes". Let me take this opportunity to ask you if you agree that something about that should be included. It seems important to me. Smart's sentence is: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books." I think that it is important to find commentary in reliable sources that connects contemporary art to art history. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the actual content (I have not fully analyzed what Bus Stop is claiming), it is clear Bus Stop is edit warring to a preferred version (whether this is right or wrong) without gaining consensus first, and that needs to stop. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring?[19] Preferred version? Preferred for what? Do you think that perhaps you should "fully analyze[d]" what is being discussed? Do you see me using the Talk page to try to gain consensus? Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You added/changed content. It was reverted. You added back in. That's edit warring. I don't care if your content is 100% the right answer, but clearly there are other editors that disagree with that change, and you need consensus to add it back in. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what you added, you are using the talk page, but you aren't waiting for consensus, making the edits just as disruptive. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—this happens to be an article on a painting. The sentences I edited are not particularly controversial. We should simply be using reliable sources to provide the reader with an understanding of a work of contemporary art. The painting has been considered controversial in some ways. But it is still just a painting. My two edits were separated by almost two weeks. Why not read up on the material under discussion including the original paragraph and the edits that editors have made, in attempt to represent that material for the reader? I welcome you weighing in with an opinion and I look forward to responding to that opinion, whatever it might be, but you should be informed on the specifics under discussion. You have said "I have not fully analyzed what Bus Stop is claiming". What you really should do is read the paragraph by Alastair Smart and tell me what you think is of value in that paragraph. What would you extract from that paragraph for inclusion in our article? What would be quoted? What would be paraphrased? I think it would be great if you put together two or three sentences and presented it here for our appraisal. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your edits were reverted, that means those additions/changes are considered controversial by other editors, even if you don't think they are. I don't have to understand what you're adding, only what the history page and talk page shows that you are not following appropriate edit procedures (outlined at WP:BRD). I'm not speaking if your additions are actually the right thing to add or not, just that what you are doing on the article is completely improper, whether you are right or wrong. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—the material that we are discussing has been edited many times by many editors. My two edits are probably the fewest number of edits to that material of any editor who touched that material. The only exception could be an editor who only edited that paragraph one time. Do you not see how ridiculous this discussion is getting? Furthermore the material that I wish to see in that little blurb has already been in the blurb. I am not going to go through hundreds of revisions to pin down who added and removed what material, but a random sampling in the History shows for instance this version from June 16, 2013. In that version I find:
"At the time of the 2013 Lichtenstein Retrospective at the Tate Modern, The Daily Telegraph's critic Alastair Smart, derided the entire exhibit. When discussing Whaam, he belittled Lichtenstein's inspiration of comic books rather than more noble biblical or mytholigical sources. Then, he stated his belief that the work was really an attempt to mimic Abstract Expressionism. Smart describes the subject matter as "a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion" and speaks against the work's merits as a positive representation of the fighting American spirit, suggesting that those who espouse this thematic belief are really trying to hard to support the work. Smart does concede that the work marks "Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene"."
I kid you not. My first edit to this article is July 10, 2013. The tinkering with that paragraph by other editors probably goes back further than the June 16, 2013 version that I randomly quote from above. I am arguing for the inclusion of the biblical/mythological thing—am I not? It was already in there! Let us stop arguing about who did what. I suggest we look at the Alastair Smart paragraph that this stuff is based on. And then let's come up with some agreed-upon language. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a more neutral title for this section than Bus Stop's disruptive editing? Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading past what I'm saying: You added/changed material, it was reverted by the editors running this page, you re-added even while discussion of the material's appropriateness was going on. That's disruptive, period. It doesn't matter if the material was in there before, if you have only a few edits, etc. Your actions on the article are disruptive. Wait until consensus is gained. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Bus Stop is well on his way to breaking his own "least productive discussion" record with his evasions and prolix rationalizations. Have we hit 97kb yet?

A much better way out of this would be for Bus Stop to say: "I'm sorry, I'll stop editing tendentiously, but, hey! here are some ideas I have that might contribute to the article..." and then allow a consensus to be formed on whether or not those ideas should be included. Of course, that has to go hand-in-hand with a willingness to recognize when consensus has decided against an idea. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Bus stop run his ideas through Modernist (talk · contribs). I would trust Modernist to filter out encyclopedic issues on behalf of WPVA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think it's a tempest in a teapot and should stop right here...Modernist (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, nobody believes for a split second thatyou would ever consider the embarrassment of agreeing with any position of Curly Turkey's. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose. I don't think the ongoing hairsplitting will do anything to the article that will drag it below acceptable standards. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Background section[edit]

Based on my comments above, this is the only section that seems wonky compared to the rest of the article. It has no focus, and each para bounces between ideas, and does not lead me to understand why Litchenstein made Whaam!, whether it was to try something new or part of the current trend in pop art. For example, the current last paragraph, about Litchenstein's lack of interest in comic book collecting, seems extremely disjointed and a point for his bio page, but not the painting. This is fixable, but whether that is building a better story (*) moving the details around in this article and the Litchenstein bio one, or something else, I'm not sure. In how I read this article, I would think the background section should explain the at-the-time current pop art scene and trends, and then lead into Litchenstein's interest in the area and any previous works, as then to lead into discussing Whaam within that context. I don't know if this is the best way, but it feels a lot better than the present "mess" the BG section is in (it's not bad, just the part that would keep me from supporting this passing FAC, but it is fixable.) --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, Why he made Whaam! Background says 1. In the 1940s during the war, he worked on Cartoons, 2. Late 1950s and early 1960s, artists began doing formal paintings of comics, 3. Lichtenstein liked emotional War comics, 4. Lichtenstein had done many aeronautical themed works, 5. He chose the scale to be consistent with contemporary works, and 6. He liked the challenge of Comic subjects. What don't you understand about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—I found this interesting. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a full dissertation on the pop art school in this article, but enough to explain it was a movement when Whaam! was created, and Litchenstein's role in that. I'm envisioning a section that would be the same relative length as the Background, but just ordered in a better "story" for the reader. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
War Comics is part of a subgenre of Lichtenstein's pop work. He also did romance comics, explosions and commercial/household items. Explaining Lichtenstein's role in pop art is Bio material. There are a few dozen paintings on WP that would have an identical background section. Heck there are about a dozen of his War comic works on WP. Not even sure what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading Masem's comments correctly, I think he's not suggesteing significant expanding or cutting the "Background" section, but rearranging it into a more readable narrative. I agree.
Masem also seems to be suggesting the last paragraph on Lichtenstein's lack of interest in comics per se should be dropped. I disagree. I think it's unlikely that many readers will not have that question at least in the back of their minds, and if the answer takes no more than a sentence or two, why cut it out? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's out of place because I think it's given in the wrong context. Saying Litchenstein didn't collect comics doesn't seem to connect to why he drew Whaam, as written. On the other hand, saying something like (and this is just very rough text, not even neceesarily accurate but to point out what I'm suggesting) "At the time of drawing Whaam, Litchenstein had done a number of other comic-based works; Litchenstein had little interest in comic books when young but saw these works in <such and such a light>." Guide the reader to understanding where Whaam fits into Litchensteins short bio, rather than drop them facts without reason. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he did not collect comics is not related. However, this short paragraph sets up the motivation that Lichtenstein liked this type of challenge. How else are we going to work in that he liked this type of challenge?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked in a your suggested alteration of this paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section still feels very disjointed. It should start by explaining the rise of comic book works in pop art, driven by Warhol and Litchenstein, then you can briefly mention that he was a military participant and had familiarity with combat scenes, then say how he challenge of bring comic art to pop art that is implied through there, leading to the larger formats that Whaam! is an example of. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on this talk section since I still believe this section is very poorly written in context of the article. The article needs this section but it needs major refinement to direct the reader to "Whaam" and less about the details of Litchenstein's background that aren't important to understanding "Whaam". --MASEM (t) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section is fairly concise and I don't think there's much superfluous there. Visual arts FAs often contain a comparable or greater amount of background (see the "New York art scene" section of Campbell's Soup Cans or the "Biographical context" section of Triptych, May–June 1973). I agree it's still a bit rough and will try messing with it some more. Ewulp (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the size, it's the flow. Ideally, to me, it should flow "Current State of Pop Art prior to Whaam", "Litchenstein's work prior to Whaam", and then "Reasoning to create Whaam". That information is sorta there, but it starts on Litchenstein's career and eventually meanders to Whaam. It's fixable, entirely. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ewulp[edit]

Where is your source for this edit which changes the price of the work?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Bailey article; I've added a cite. Ewulp (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just telling Modernist that the phrase "The work is also regarded as one of his most influential works along with Drowning Girl and Look Mickey" does not mean these are the three most influential, just that each is among his most influential. How does that misrepresent the source?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the source reads: "The show will feature influential paintings such as "Drowning Girl" from the Museum of Modern Art in New York and "Look Mickey", on loan from the National Gallery of Art in Washington as well as the Tate's own "Wham!" piece"[20] but what does "influential" mean? Is the source explaining further? If the source is not explaining anything further about what they mean by "influential" then perhaps we should omit it. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paintings are identified as influential, not as his most influential. Other sources here may identify Whaam! as "most" important/influential, but this source doesn't. A painting that is less influential than the average Lichtenstein painting might still be described as influential. And as mentioned in my edit summary, the beginning of the section is a bit tedious in the number of ways it describes the painting as one the most important; surely this line won't be missed. Ewulp (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Influential" can have value to the reader if further is said on that topic. Who did these paintings influence? Other artists? The graphics industry? In general Lichtenstein's lifetime output has been very influential on the graphic arts. (I stumbled upon a source for that but I can't find it right now.) But we are not saying the 3 named paintings were influential in either of those two areas. The source doesn't specify an object of influence. I would argue for the removal of this: "A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works." All the assertions in that sentence are entirely debatable. About this painting we should say it is an "example of Pop art". I don't think we should be passing along to the reader value judgements of this sort. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have no remaining sources that say influential. The remaining say important. Do we want to omit that this painting is influential?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. adding influential to graphic artists would be good. I think we need to retain content that says this is an important and influential work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what a source said. I encountered a source which I can't find again. A problem though is that it wouldn't likely draw a connection between this painting or any particular painting by Lichtenstein and his influence on graphic arts. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way why do you "think we need to retain content that says this is an important and influential work"? Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ewulp—thank you for your edits to the last sentences of the article. Can I suggest this wording:
Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart, in a generally disparaging review, acknowledged Lichtenstein's "cheeky assault on the swaggering, self-important Abstract Expressionists". It is also Smart's opinion that Lichtenstein may be best known for his "narrative scenes". Smart compared Warhol to Lichtenstein, finding Lichtenstein lacking. Whereas Smart considered Lichtenstein "repetitive", Smart noted that Warhol went on to "address the dark underbelly of modern life".[1]
I have removed at least two factors. Tell me what you think Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we need is the part of Smart's review that describes Whaam!—not Smart's opinion of Lichtenstein's work in general, which would be better suited for the biography than this article. Ewulp (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something that makes Smart's review worthy of more ink than the last fifty years of criticism? That's an honest question, not snark. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Ewulp, well then that would be only one paragraph of Smart's review, and everything would derive from this paragraph:
"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene." Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issues on latest set of changes:
  1. 1st half of 2nd paragraph does not belong in this article. It does not provide motivation for this paining.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's minimal background information, answering the question "what did he do for 17 years between army discharge and Whaam!?" Many FAs on works of art have much more background than these few brief sentences; look at the "Influences and commissions" section of The Battle of Alexander at Issus for instance. There should be enough biographical context so the painting doesn't emerge from a mysterious vacuum. Ewulp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Last sentence probably belongs in the reception section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it belongs there, then it needs to be cited in context—noting the snark with which it was stated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence could go in either section; it serves a purpose in the "Background" section by furnishng a sourced description of the work he was doing in the early 60s: a "thought provoking and often witty compendium of images". But it sounds somewhat laudatory and might be a better fit in "Reception". Ewulp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it "sounds laudatory" in the least, then it's being misrepresented. That's a breach of text-source integrity. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not misrepresented; it sounds somewhat laudatory in the original. You rarely call something "thought-provoking and often witty" unless you somewhat approve of it. Ewulp (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Enormous apologies. I could've sworn I was responding to simmering else entirely. Chalk it up to premature senility. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems! Ewulp (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Still concerned that you have removed the only sourcing that this painting is influential.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on this... Ewulp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know that it is prominent, important, and influential because it was purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966 and has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006. The lead of the article presently reads:
"Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006."
I would change that to something like:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006." Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boastful WP:LEADs seem common look at David (Michelangelo), which uses the word masterpiece and see the quote to open Mona Lisa.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We would be more justified in regarding it skeptically. It relates strongly to the age we live in. Whaam! hasn't really stood the test of time as Michelangelo's David or da Vinci's Mona Lisa. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can leave the term "diptych" out of this sentence. Do we have a good quality source for the term diptych? Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do find this: "Before this show I hadn't given any thought to something that suddenly seems significant. "Whaam!" is a diptych. Two side-by-side panels are separated by an obvious split down the middle. Horizontal panoramas might have been rare, but diptychs hadn't been a big deal for 500 years."[21] But I don't find for instance the Tate museum referring to it as a diptych. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find this at the Tate site: "The artist wrote that this was his first visualisation of 'Whaam!' and that it was executed just before he started the painting. His original idea had been for a single canvas, but the diptych concept (embodied in T00897) developed as he worked on this drawing."[22] I'm still not sure that the finished two-part painting should definitively be called a "diptych". It seems both the preparatory drawing and the painting are being referred to there. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, strictly speaking, it is not a diptych. We can describe that it is a work consisting of two panels and that it is sometimes referred to as a diptych. I would suggest the following wording:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006. It consists of two panels side by side and is sometimes referred to as a diptych."
The previous wording is ponderous by comparison, in my opinion. As a general rule I think this article is improved when it is shortened. It reads in a more snappier fashion when some of the excess is trimmed out. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, one more possibility:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting, in the diptych configuration, by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bus stop[edit]

Should we be writing that Alastair Smart characterized the painting as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism? (That is found in the Reception section.) Alastair Smart only writes that the size of the painting mimics the size of paintings in abstract expressionism, and I have already added a sentence pointing that out: "The large dimensions of Whaam! are consistent with the generally large canvases in use at that time by the abstract expressionists." (That is found in the Background section.) I think a painting has aspects other than its dimensions but Alastair Smart makes no mention of these.

A painting can have color aspects and graphic aspects, to name two. Alastair Smart does not say that in these ways the painting Whaam! relates to anything abstract expressionistic. The sentence in our article does not match up with what Alastair Smart says. Our article says: "Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism." Alastair Smart, in his review says here, "In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." Note that the reference is only to the size of the painting.

This is a bunch of pomposity and should be removed: "The work is admired for the temporal, spatial and psychological unity of its two panels…"

Can't this be said in plain English: "…altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements." I think we want to say that the speech ballon is moved relative to other imagery found in the painting.

This is too much information (or misinformation): "A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works." This is a trite comment. This is a large sweeping statement about a completely subjective matter. It would suffice to say the painting is an example of Pop art or even that the painting is considered to be an example of Pop art. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comment, even if for only how incorrect it may be, is Alastair Smart's comment in this paragraph:
"Lichtenstein duly became a brand, lucrative but repetitive; a one-trick wonder, seemingly intent – after his long, early years as an outsider – to stick with a winning formula once he’d found it. The comparison with his Pop Art peer, Andy Warhol, who went on to address the dark underbelly of modern life and the American dream, is grossly unflattering to him."
Warhol provides easy comparison for the reader, because the reader is likely to be familiar with the Pop art work of Warhol. The comparison between the two is at least thought-provoking. Whereas Lichtenstein is said to be "repetitive", Warhol is said to have gone on to "to address the dark underbelly of modern life".
As I've already said I think we should include another Alastair Smart comment, this one which I agree with: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books." Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement would need some sort of elaboration. What does "narrative scene" mean to the majority of prospective readers? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that a lot of "elaboration" is called for. Why wouldn't a dictionary definition suffice? We have an article Narrative art which says "Narrative art is art that tells a story, either as a moment in an ongoing story or as a sequence of events unfolding over time." Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources, that I have read regarding Whaam!, narrative does not mean Narrative art, but rather textual elements of the work versus other graphical elements not composed of text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Narration can take the form of words. It would be correct to refer to the words written in speech balloons as narration. But some subject matter is more narrative and some subject matter is less narrative. Alastair Smart is saying "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known…" because the painting "Whaam!" (and certain other paintings) involves subject matter that is quite narrative. Contrast the subject matter with that found in Campbell's Soup Cans. There is no implication of an unfolding of events. The subject matter which is the painting Drowning Girl implies a sequence of events. Paintings are single still images so it is understandable that narration would seem to be generally absent. But some paintings are more narrative and some paintings are less narrative. Alastair Smart correctly observes the tendency of Lichtenstein's paintings to be narrative. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the primary editor of the article can't agree with you on what "narrative art" means in this context, then how can we hope the average reader stumbling across a TFA will understand? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that I have not encountered this use of the term narrative in my research on this work. This is a second somewhat relevant meaning of the term, but not the one most scholars use in relation to this work. With Drowning Girl there was much discussion about pregnant moments in the FAC. I think that this is what you are talking about in this use of the term in the sense that this panel is part of a series of events that are like a story and this panel depicted in its grand scale is thus part of a narrative. That is a different meaning than the scholars I have read.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a word in the dictionary. Alastair Smart is using a dictionary term. Alastair Smart is saying "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known…"[23] Alastair Smart is describing not only Whaam! but a tendency in Lichtenstein's paintings in general. Many of Lichtenstein's paintings are especially narrative. This is an observation that is being made by a reliable source, and it is a good observation because of its specificity and concreteness. Bus stop (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Lichtenstein paintings are narrative. This is not narrative. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That theme is important in many Lichtenstein works. I don't know how important it is in this work. When a plane blows up that has a sense of finality. There is no wonderment about what happens next like in Drowning Girl. There is not even much interest in how we got to this point like in Drowning Girl. That point is less important for this particular image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair Smart is saying that Whaam! is narrative. This is his entire paragraph:
"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene. "[24]
Narrative has a dictionary definition which is consistent with what we see in the painting Whaam!, and what Alastair Smart is referring to in the painting Whaam!. Alastair Smart provides us, in his own words, a narration of that which is depicted: "a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." You say "When a plane blows up that has a sense of finality." There is a "before" and "after". Obviously a still painting generally does not convey an event changing over time. Nevertheless some pictorial entities are more narrative and others less narrative. Whaam! happens to be a good example of an especially narrative pop art painting. Depicted is an event. The viewer is particularly aware of the time element. It is implied by the conflict unfolding on the painted canvas. This would probably not be described as being narrative. But we should just go by what sources say when the assertion in the source clarifies an aspect of a painting. We should extract from sources that which meaningfully sheds light on the nature of the painting we are writing about. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the definition " representing stories or events pictorially or sculpturally" requires multiple panels. I don't get the feeling that depicting one scene from a story counts as narrative. It seems to me that narrative means presenting the story and not a scene from it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Terms of Smart's use the paragraph starts as if the subject is narration, but narrative scene points to the fact that his picture is just one scene of a narrative. Smart makes no implication of the natural connection in the reader's mind to other moments. No one looks at that and wonders about the future of the people in the scene like they do with Drowning Girl. Smart does not claim that. DG has all kinds of sources discussing this wonderment. It is not the same issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrative—or story—art represents events taking place over time. These events may, however, be compressed into a single image that implies something that has already happened or is about to take place."[25] Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—you would be right that quintessential narration involves words. I do see your argument. It is somewhat supported by the following: "There is No Such Thing as Narrative Art". That writer says: "Although it is commonplace to speak of the spatial arts, painting and sculpture, as narrative arts—a way of speaking which suggests the intimate relations between image and text—pictorial artists obviously do not narrate stories in the same way that writers do. In a certain sense, they do not narrate at all. To speak of an artist as a teller of stories is a figure of speech, since painters and sculptors do not “tell,” they “show.” As some critics have observed, pictorial artists imply a narrative by referring to what has been said in words, but surely such allusions are not the same thing as a narrative in words." It is not surprising that there are different views on this, but I think we can justifiably write from the point of view of those commenting on art. Bus stop (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

concerning the derivation of imagery[edit]

Apropos of our language presently in the article referencing "impropriety", "plagiarism", and failure "to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources", we can point out that the practice of "appropriation" applies here too. Many artists of the 1960s took imagery from preexisting sources and incorporated it into their work. This is supported by a source such as "moma_learning". I would suggest we add the following sentence (I have presented it in bold below) to the end of the relevant paragraph. The whole paragraph would read:

"Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. To claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, or even raised the issue. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic book. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."

I would add the "moma_learning" source to the end of that new sentence. We need to impress upon the reader that there is precedent for drawing upon the images in preexisting material and that the practice was widespread among Lichtenstein's contemporaries particularly in the pop art movement. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a case where most of this seems more appropriate in Litchenstein's article, with just enough introduction to describe how it applies to Whaam. We do need to mention appropriation in relationship to Whaam, but we don't need to go into the larger issue for Litchenstein here. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is nothing controversial in the sentence I have suggested, and it is on the general topic of the paragraph to which it is appended. That paragraph begins with: "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety…" The act that is perhaps improper actually has a name. That act is called "appropriation". Was "appropriation" practiced by other pop artists of the time? Of course, and our source supports this: "Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture—both absorbing and acting as a mirror for the ideas, interactions, needs, desires, and cultural elements of the times. As Warhol stated, “Pop artists did images that anyone walking down the street would recognize in a split second—comics, picnic tables, men’s pants, celebrities, refrigerators, Coke bottles.”" Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wrong not to mention appropriation either here or at Litchenstein's page, it is a recognized POV and one that is otherwise covered neutrally (both sides). I'm just cautioning going too far the road of explaining appropriation in general in this article about Whaam! - you only need the sentence to introduce it, and then go into the specifics on appropriation and Whaam! --MASEM (t) 00:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reword "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period" to "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's use of appropriation in Whaam! and other works of the period"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a full sentence at the end of the paragraph to counter the charges of wrongdoing presented in some of the sentences at the beginning of the paragraph. The sentence I'm suggesting includes an explanation of what is called "appropriation" and by way of explanation my sentence points out that other pop artists at the time were also borrowing images. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can say, taking CT's language "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's use ofappropriation, borrowing of images from other sources, in Whaam! and other works of the period." Enough context to let the reader knows what it means here and if they need more, a link for such. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a sentence devoted to appropriation is warranted. The paragraph begins with a litany of complaints concerning derivation of imagery: "impropriety", "plagiarism", "copying", failure to "credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". Such suggestions of wrongdoing are mitigated by the common practice of pop artists in the 1960s of "borrowing" images from many sources in popular culture. The sentence that I am suggesting for the end of that paragraph has the effect of countering the earlier suggestions in that paragraph. I believe this is in keeping with the presentation of a full view on the derivation of imagery. This is the sentence I am suggesting: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." This would be the source supporting it. The source is from the Museum of Modern Art. It is understandable that representatives of comic book art have complaints to lodge when paintings containing similar images sell for great sums of money. But there is a context that has only to do with art. There was an aim to find imagery in the surrounding environment for use in paintings. This is called "appropriation" and it was widely practiced by the pop artists of the time. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is understandable that representatives of comic book art have complaints to lodge when paintings containing similar images sell for great sums of money." — It's easy to argue sour grapes, especially when you have no sources to back it up. Remember, though, it's not the creators themselves who have made the accusations, nor are they confined to comics folk. Many (many) people simply don't accept appropriation as legitimate—especially in the 21st century, when copyrights are considered natural property rights, and lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement (included "piracy") are constantly in the news. (Appropriation is not unknown to comics folk, either—check out Art Spiegelman's "Malpractice Suite" as a prominent example by a cartoonist your average person may actually have heard of).
Anyways, how about: ""Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's use ofartistic appropriation—the practice of borrowing images from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period."? Seriously, all the claims are fairly balanced with counterclaims, and just because the issue of appropriation is "settled" in the arts community doesn't mean everyone's going to buy it (or should). Let the reader make their own value judgements. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already undue emphasis on negative commentary associated with the derivation of imagery found in Whaam!. ("Impropriety", "plagiarism", "copying", failure to "credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources".) I think there has been a selective reading of sources as well as a tendency to put lower quality and/or not-quite-on-topic sources on par with good quality and on-topic sources. We have an article with the title "Is Lichtenstein a great modern artist or a copy cat?" I point out the title because I think the title would suggest it is on topic. It does address Whaam! specifically, and I am going to quote a reference to Whaam!. The article, in the "culture" section of the BBC online, is written by Alastair Sooke, who is an arts journalist. Sooke says, "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."[26] We can briefly allude to questions regarding the relationship of Whaam! to its source imagery. But greater depth of treatment should be allotted to articles of appropriate scope. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we have one paragraph in which half of it brings up issues that are brought up in multiple sources, including the BBC, and the other half refutes those claims, and you're unsatisfied with the balance we've achieved. You have very lopsided ideas of what "undue" is supposed to mean, and very poor comprehension of the "comprehensive" requirement. Quoting Sooke at us multiple times tells us nothing more than that you happen to agree strongly with him, and take issue with readers making up their own minds—for instance, Gibbons has very obviously compared the two images very closely (having seen the original Lichtenstein in person, and produced a very faithful copy of the Novick), and still disagrees.
"We" have "briefly allude[d] to questions regarding the relationship of Whaam! to its source imagery", and "greater depth of treatment" has been "allotted to articles of appropriate scope". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Many (many) people simply don't accept appropriation as legitimate—especially in the 21st century, when copyrights are considered natural property rights, and lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement (included "piracy") are constantly in the news."[27] This article is not a general discussion on the rightness or wrongness of "appropriation" in the visual arts. The Museum of Modern Art says:
"Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television."
"Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture—both absorbing and acting as a mirror for the ideas, interactions, needs, desires, and cultural elements of the times. As Warhol stated, “Pop artists did images that anyone walking down the street would recognize in a split second—comics, picnic tables, men’s pants, celebrities, refrigerators, Coke bottles.” Today, appropriating, remixing, and sampling images and media is common practice for visual, media, and performance artists, yet such strategies continue to challenge traditional notions of originality and test the boundaries of what it means to be an artist."[28]
This is an article on one individual painting named Whaam!. We should use good quality sources. The Museum of Modern Art is definitely a good quality source. It is telling us that a group of pop artists working in the mid-20th-century employed a strategy of intentionally borrowing, copying, and altering preexisting images. Yet you are objecting to the inclusion in our article of a sentence saying "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." I think it is fully supported by a good quality source.
Incidentally, it does not matter whether I agree with Alastair Sooke or not. You say that I "happen to agree strongly with him". I agree partially with him. But this is irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that. It links to the appropriation article so that an interested reader can learn more but trying to describe any more beyond establishing its context in the Whaam article is far too much undue weight. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest "Lichtenstein's use of artistic appropriation—the practice of borrowing images from other sources" and you complain that I object to a sentence that in essence says almost exactly the same thing, in a clunkier, tacked-on manner? Them's some fine hairs to split!
"This article is not a general discussion on the rightness or wrongness of "appropriation" in the visual arts." Which is why it doesn't, and nobody has suggested it should. Bye-bye, Straw Man. Please don't come back, though I'm sure you will...
"I agree partially with him. But this is irrelevant." Yes, it is. It's totally irrelevant. The fact that he thinks blah blah blah "banishes the hoary" blah blah blah is totally irrelevant when, in fact, it empirically hasn't. People have issues with it. They voice those issues. As this is an encyclopaedia and not a blog, we are required to present both sides of the issue, and let the readers decide what is "legitimate" and what ain't. And, seriously, I've told you again and again, I'm totally familiar with the idea of appropriation—I even did a presentation on Duchamp in high school art class—so you can quit lecturing me. You're missing the point. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, thanks for all the feedback. I have tried to balance the thoughts presented above. Masem and Bus Stop, I hope we are getting close to a point where you are comfortable making a support/oppose decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—has "Lichtenstein's impropriety" become an established fact? You are referring to "Lichtenstein's impropriety" as though it were a foregone conclusion. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence, "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's impropriety, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period" is sourced to paulgravett.com. We do not find the term "impropriety" in that source. I can accept paraphrasing, but I cannot accept misrepresentation. One must selectively read the source to derive only that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's impropriety". And another thing—is Dave Gibbons a "critic"? The source "paulgravett.com" counters Dave Gibbons' concerns. Why is that not represented in our article? Dave Gibbons says "That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’."[29] I don't think the source ("paulgravett.com") is entirely accepting of that view as expressed by Dave Gibbons. The source 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…"[30] The source also says "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!"[31] The source itself has a view to express. Yet our article is only providing representation to a view expressed by Dave Gibbons. If we are going to use a source to support an assertion, that assertion should be reflective a general view expressed by that source. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have the following: "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". What does this have to do with the one painting that is the subject of this article? That statement is out of the scope of this article. The two sources provided do not say this in relation to Whaam!, which is the ostensible subject of this article. To quote Masem's post above, "this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that."[32] Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed impropriety to perceived improprieties.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be entirely unnecessary if Bus Stop would accept my or Masem's rewordings. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—Please consider removing the following wording from our article: "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". (It is found within this section of the article. The two sources given in support of that assertion barely mention Whaam! at all.) This is not within the scope of this article. Masem has said "this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that."[33] I asked to have the following sentence added: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[34] (Note that it is sourced to the Museum of Modern Art.) Masem argued that this could not be included. Masem argued that the sentence I suggested could not be included "Because this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that."[35] We should not be deciding which "peripheral" material should be included based on double standards. The sentence reading "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources" is no less "peripheral" than my suggested sentence reading "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries"[36]—and the sentence that I suggested is far better sourced. The persistent problem that does not seem to want to go away involves out-of-scope material being added to the article. That is not the subject of this article. If you wish to bring in peripheral information, or tangentially related information, than you can't rule out information about the working habits of the core group of pop artists in mid-twentieth century. Why? Because as the source supporting the sentence that I suggested for inclusion tells us: "Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture—both absorbing and acting as a mirror for the ideas, interactions, needs, desires, and cultural elements of the times."[37] This was standard operating procedure, and that is sourced to MoMA, not exactly lightweight as far as sources go. All sources are not the same. Our project does not necessarily accept all blogs as reliable sources. The BBC and MoMA tend to be regarded as high quality sources for many purposes. I would submit that for the purpose of explaining the place of Appropriation (art) in the artwork of several high profile pop artists in the middle of the twentieth century one would have a difficult time finding a better source than perhaps this one. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." was incorporated with your desired source several days ago in the sentence "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—". I do not refer to other artists in this use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have an argument for removing "royalties" from the sentence, but not credit. More than one source (maybe not the ones inlined) have definitely talked about that in the context of this painting. The rest of it is not even remotely "out-of-scope", as we've been through over and over and over and over again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token the following sentence, appended to the end of the paragraph we are discussing, would not be out of scope: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[38]
As I have stated above, an abbreviated summary of this content is already in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole paragraph would read approximately as follows:
"Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. To claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, or even raised the issue. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic book. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[39] Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have been working from an outdated version of the article. Between 13:56 and 19:01 on the 9th I made these edits, which largely incorporated your content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which leaves the "impropriety" you object to, and gives us a longer, clunkier paragraph. What is your objection to the wording I suggested? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that while you two were going back and forth, I revised the diputed content to read as follow:

"Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—[73] in Whaam! and other works of the period.[19] Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways.[36] To claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s.[74] Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources;[75][76] Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.[49]"--Let me know if this is still contentious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have merely plunked the word "appropriation" into the first sentence of the paragraph that we have been discussing. The problem all along has been that you are presenting unbalanced material supported by insubstantial sources—mostly blogs—and you have been presenting too much of it. Now you are objecting to the inclusion of material that comes from a substantial source (MoMA) which would tend to restore balance. Most substantial commentary emanating from the art world supports the accomplishments of Lichtenstein. This is an interesting quote I found by Bernice Rose in a 1987 book called "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published by the Museum of Modern Art:
"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." (I don't have the book, but I found that quote at this blog; I can't vouch for its accuracy.) I think Bernice Rose contends that the act of copying was important to Lichtenstein and for reasons beyond the mere expediencies of image procurement. I think Bernice Rose contends that Lichtenstein wanted to challenge the notion of originality prevailing at that time.
I've tried to add a simple sentence: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[40] You object to that sentence. I am not sure what your objection is. The point to the sentence is that the art movement known as pop art was crucially about the appropriation of imagery deemed to be part of "popular culture". I think we see a similar idea expressed in the quote from Bernice Rose. I don't think it is sufficient to say as that paragraph in our article presently says "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation…" I don't think that is meaningful because appropriation is an important part of pop art. One would have to be unaware of the important relationship between "copying" and pop art to go on at length with this issue as the paragraph presently does. Furthermore this is just an article on a painting. I would change the whole paragraph to read something like this:
"Comic-book-like imagery has left some puzzled about copyright implications though Roy Lichtenstein has never been sued for infringement. Appropriation of imagery was widely practiced by pop artists in the 1960s."
That is all that is called for, in my opinion. I don't think more needs to be said on this topic in the "Whaam!" article. The links are there to the two articles at which further delving into the subject is possible. This article should be preserved for material pertaining to the painting Whaam!. Please tell me if there is anything left out, and why you think it needs to be included in this article, and what substantial source(s) would support it. For the above I think we have support in sources such as this, this, and this. Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"supported by insubstantial sources—mostly blogs"--the sources include articles from the BBC, the Chicago Tribune, and MoMA; one of the "blogs" is a blog and archive that publishes peer reviewed articles before they appear in The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship, a scholarly journal put out by Ernesto Priego (a PhD in Information Studies at City University London) and others. The other "blog" is by Paul Gravett, an authority in his field with several books to his name (and a Wikipedia page), and the lenght, level of detail, number of illustrations, and overall polish of the article makes it clear it wasn't "just" a blog post. Oh, wait!—there is a "blog" section and an "article" section at Gravett's website—and what was cited was filed under "articles" and not "blog"! "Mostly blogs" my back door.
And here we are back on the treadmill of Bus Stop trying his darnedest to remove or minimize negative criticism at all costs: "Comic-book-like imagery has left some puzzled about copyright implications though Roy Lichtenstein has never been sued for infringement. Appropriation of imagery was widely practiced by pop artists in the 1960s."—this clearly takes a POV: that appropriation cannot seriously be questioned. No, this is an encyclopedia, and we leave that up tot the readers to decide: see WP:NPOV.
In the end, I seriously think that the opening sentence to that paragraph could drop the word "impropriety"—it was my suggestion, and I now think it was not a good choice. I think the rewording I suggested above is a great improvement. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely argue that Bus Stop's complaints are trivial and nuanced at best, and drawing this out far more than it is needed. He is looking for an exactness we don't otherwise expect, particularly with how well the sourcing now supports the existing language. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you can't substitute "Paul Gravett" for "Dave Gibbons". One has to look at "paulgravett.com" and see what it says. Dave Gibbons says: "this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick". The source, paulgravett.com, does not agree. You are selectively reading the source, and failing to represent what the whole source says. Paul Gravett 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 (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." Paul Gravett also says "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."
Bear in mind also that it is not just "appropriation" that we are talking about. The images in probably all cases were somehow significantly altered. "Appropriation" was necessary to represent popular culture. That is how we get the name "pop art". But the pop artists were not leaving images unaltered. Note this quote, also from the same blog at which I found the Bernice Rose quote that I presented above. I don't have this book; I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quote. But information on the book can be found at this blog. The name of the book is "Masterworks in the Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Collection". It is by Robert Saltonstall Mattison. Here is the quote:
"Lichtenstein intends to raise images from popular culture to the level of high art by transforming it in his work. He takes devalued forms of visual communication, redeems them, and possesses them through recreating them in his paintings. Because he has considered and minutely adjusted every line, form and color area, his art breathes finesse and refinement."
Notice the claim, made by Robert Saltonstall Mattison, that Lichtenstein "minutely adjusted every line, form and color area". Also that he is "transforming it in his work." What does "transforming" mean? Does it mean leaving it the same? We are talking about a painting. The paragraph that we are discussing in our article does not bring a point such as this out. This is another example of a lack of balance in the paragraph under discussion. Yes, it is the intention of the pop artists in the 1960s to make paintings that use as their imagery that which is found all around them. This is what is called popular culture. But it is not necessarily their intention to leave these images unaltered. In fact I know of no case in which pop art imagery is left unaltered. Sources are telling us that Lichtenstein altered the source imagery. Therefore we are talking about "appropriation" but we are not just talking about "appropriation". Robert Saltonstall Mattison makes a point of arguing that Lichtenstein "adjusted every line, form and color area" and that he transforms imagery. We can't blithely overlook the fundamental aims of pop art, nor should we overlook the artistic working methods of Lichtenstein. His working methods involved bringing changes to source imagery that he deemed consistent with fine art. When speaking about "appropriation" concerning Lichtenstein, shouldn't you bring Robert Saltonstall Mattison's observations to bear? None of this belongs in this article, by the way. This topic should be taken up in one or more articles of appropriate scope. Believe it or not this article is just on this one painting, but I feel compelled to respond to a one-sided presentation of Lichtenstein's supposed wrongdoings. The paragraph we are discussing reads like there is some moral culpability on the part of Lichtenstein. We read for instance in that paragraph that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". This is not even an article on Roy Lichtenstein. In my opinion the paragraph should be reduced to no more than a few sentences. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Robert Saltonstall Mattison source would be more usefull if it just mentioned the word Whaam!.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—I'm not stating that we must explore every aspect of this issue in this article. On the contrary I think this issue should be reduced in this article. The same suggestions of wrongdoing are being said in different ways in the paragraph as it now stands. The present coverage in the paragraph under discussion is one-sided. There are other factors that should be presented if we are to give the reader a comprehensive grasp of what transpired in 1960s pop art, including Lichtenstein's participation in it. There are other factors. What were some of the aims of the art movement? What distinguishes a painting from a comic book image? We should present the views of good quality sources. Robert Saltonstall Mattison is one. Bernice Rose is another. But are we going to discuss all this in the Whaam! article? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subpar source[edit]

"It is widely described as either Lichtenstein's most famous work" near the beginning of "Reception" is sourced to Reproduced Fine Art, a commercial site which does not seem to meet the standards for a reliable source. Ewulp (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the greatest source, but it has passed two source reviews. I could use some help finding better sources for this content, BTW. Also, still looking for a source to reinsert influential.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically contemporary art. "Fame" and "influence" are not as applicable to this painting as for instance a much older painting. The reader should be told in the first sentence that this is a "pop art painting" as that is very basic information. The lead presently reads, with bolding added by me:
"Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006."
I would change that to:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting, in the diptych configuration, by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006."
Its "prominence" is evidenced by the fact that it is displayed at the Tate Modern. Clicking on Tate Modern we find that it is "Britain's national gallery of international modern art" and that it is "the most-visited modern art gallery in the world, with around 4.7 million visitors per year." Stating that the painting is prominent is superfluous. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, that's not what the "prominent" is referring to here. Just because it is displayed at the Tate doesn't make the work of art prominent. The prominent here is referring to Whaam!'s influence relatively to the whole of pop art, not where it is displayed. As long as that statement can be sourced to avoid OR peacocky words (it should be able to), that part is fine. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—you say "The prominent here is referring to Whaam!'s influence relatively to the whole of pop art, not where it is displayed." Do you have a source for "prominence" or "influence" in relation to Whaam!? Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find exact sourcing (that otherwise doesn't circle back to WP) but even looking through top hits at google books on (whaam) (pop art) (example) shows that many consider it a standard example of the pop art movement that, by the sourcing already given here, is not original research to apply the term "prominent example". --MASEM (t) 17:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree there. If you are inferring the work's prominence from the frequency you find it used as an example, but don't have a source that states it, I'd call the the very definition of "original research". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—why, in your opinion, is it "prominent"? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sources already used here and that I see in searching cite it often as an example of pop art. No, they don't call it "predominate" but if you search on examples of pop art, you pretty much end up on two names as key figures: Litchenstein and Warhol, and when demonstrating Litchenstein's work, point to either Whaam or Drowning Girl. No, no source out there states explicitly it is a predominate example, but it is not original research to consider that it is used by a numerous sources as an example of pop art (and specifically knowing what else they call out as examples) and considering that it is a predominate as an example. Or to put it another way, in a survey of sources that in describing what pop art is and that give examples of such, the number of times Whaam is mentioned is very high and would be one of the top 5 or so. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add some of the best sources that you looked at in this regard. Basically, there should be some saying it is the most important/influential/prominent/notable and others that say it is on the short list with Drowning Girl (among Lichtensteins). Then we should have some discussing pop art that say it is on the short list of works that are most representative of the movement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Masem—there are many examples of pop art. They can vary considerably in many ways. This one painting hardly represents most works of pop art. If we write something in an article, we should do so for a purpose. Just because something is reliably sourced is not sufficient justification for including that thing in an article. It would be unlikely that Whaam! would not be "prominent". Whaam! was purchased from the prominent Leo Castelli Gallery and Whaam! is in the permanent collection of the prominent Tate Modern. We include that information in the first paragraph of the lead of the article. (Even the information on prominence is prominently placed.) We need not say that Whaam! is prominent because we have demonstrated its prominence early in the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every painting or work hung at the Tate is prominent, though the reason the Tate is a prominent gallery is because they have amassed a collection of well-known art in addition to other art. Where Whaam! is hung has zero impact on its prominence as an example of pop art. You're mincing words, and that's not helping here. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—you say "Where Whaam! is hung has zero impact on its prominence as an example of pop art." Can you please tell me what has "impact on its prominence as an example of pop art"? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're being serious with this type of question, "prominence as an example of pop art" means that in the literature by experts in the field (art historians and critics in this case), they have identified in their writings that they believe Whaam! is a highly-representative example of what the pop art movement was. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—we would be doing the reader a disservice if we suggested that a work of pop art was "representative of the movement"[41]. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[42], [43], [44], [45]. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in the UK "It is widely described as either Lichtenstein's most famous work" is certainly true, and it appears very often as the image chosen to represent Pop Art. To say "Its "prominence" is evidenced by the fact that it is displayed at the Tate Modern" is not right at all. They change their displays fairly frequently, and display all sorts of stuff, though Whaam! is one of the few works that usually seems to be included, as it is a great favourite, with notebooks & other shop goods using it. But a better ref than is now used, or The Daily Mail is needed. Here's one- not exactly an art historian..., or The 60's for dummies. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's adequate. Multiple reliable sources support the "most famous" language. The word "widely" can be contentious but shouldn't be in this case, as the fact that this is one of Lichtenstein's best-known works seems uncontested. About a year ago I attempted to source a "widely" at Lucian Freud by using a swarm of RSs; it's usually the best you can do in a case like this. Ewulp (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check[edit]

Image check - all OK mostly OK (5 fair-use, 2 PD-ineligible). Sources and authors provided. 1 fair-use is problematic:

  • File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg - not OK? I am not convinced, this image is needed in this article and "significantly increases the reader's understanding". The sketch's composition on two pieces of paper is described in-text, the color notations have their own image. I don't see any more details of the sketch in-text, which would be in need of a visual illustration? If the sketch itself, its visual characteristics or notable details would get more coverage, fair-use would be OK. But all current details do not need an image imo.
  • Other fair-use images are OK.
  • Some "purpose of use" fields could be a bit more detailed, but all other 4 usages appear to be legitimate fair-use, given the complex background information to various source images.
  • Please do not use "n.a." for any FUR-parameter. If the parameter really would be "not available", the image would auto-fail WP:NFCC. Filled two summary FURs (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be an almost axiomatic fulfillment of WP:NFCC#8 which calls for "Contextual significance" to include a preparatory sketch? I should think that a preparatory sketch would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The subject of the article is the painting Whaam! and the sketch is preparatory to that painting. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the hasty removal of that image. What was called for was improved text, and context not necessarily wholesale elimination or removal IMO this image passes WP:NFCC. This article is still a mess...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the relevant policy here is WP:NFCC, of course editors can submit questionable fair-use images to WP:Non-free content review and ask for more input from other reviewers. I'll not comment on other questions of this nomination, the check did only focus on the images and their related article content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - Will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. I cannot see a clear consensus emerging from these discussions and it has become difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Reviewers might wish to note that concise statements often have more influence in reaching consensus than essay-like reviews, which often deter fresh assessments. This is the most contentious FACs that I have seen in a long time. Perhaps it is a testament to the importance of the painting that it can still be a source of controversy after all these years. I will allow renomination in one week from now. In the meantime, please try to come an agreement – even if these means agreeing to differ – on the article's Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference smart was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1&oldid=1077421591"