Talk:Whaam!

Translation

Hi! My name is Elisa and I'm currently working on translating featured articles from english to spanish for creating more available content in other languages as part of my social service class. I saw this one and started working on it last night. However, I'm having trouble uploading the files of the images of this origial article to my draft in my wikipedia spanish user page: Usuario:Elisa_Jarquin. I looked for them in wikicommons but they didn't appear there. How should I do it? Can somebody edit my code, please? Also, I didn't know where should I post this entry. Hope it doesn't mind I posted it here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisa Jarquin (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

P-80?

P-80? Who says the aircraft firing the "rocket" is a P-80. Many features of the aircraft suggest it is a F-51 or P-51. The stricken aircraft resembles the F84 or F-86. Lichtenstein may have just intended to use generic aircraft composed of various air frames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.2 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're pretty much correct. The shooter is definitely an F-51 (would be a P-51 if not for the post-'48 bars) and the target is definitely an F-86 (F-84 is mid-wing w/ dihedral and the intake is a flattened oval). Shawn D. (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The original target appears to be a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 (note the circular air intake with vertical division and tailplane about halfway up the fin). The Lichtenstein version thus shows one US aircraft attacking another. Was this just use of a generic aircraft which was easier to lift from other sources or was he making a point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninghamdavies (talk • contribs) 10:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a [{WP:RS|reliable-source]] citation to verify this claim, it is original-research and personal speculation, and unusable according to core Wikipedia policies. (See bluelinked terms for them.) --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with half a brain can tell that's a Mig-15 in the original image, why would you need to reference that? It's clear as day. Also, in the original image, the shooter's plane isn't an F-86, the air intake is incorrect.203.17.43.225 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't use insulting, uncivil language with other editors. We're all volunteering our time to help create this altruistic free encyclopedia. Secondly, what you say isn't even true: A college graduate with a master's degree couldn't tell what is or isn't a Mig-15 if fighter jets are not his or her field of expertise. And for that reason, thirdly, factual claims in Wikipedia need to be footnoted with a reliable-source citation. We can't just take any anonymous person's word for something. Surely anyone with a half a brain cell should be able to understand that, if I may humorously (and not at all seriously) borrow your phrase in an ironic way. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. It's a Mig-15 and I am an avionics engineer in the ADF so I do have the relevant industry expertise. There is no other aircraft from that era that has the characteristics pictured; particularly the visible split forward air intake in conjunction with the cruciform horizontal stabiliser mounting on the empenage. This combination is unique to the Mig-15 and no other aircraft from that era. How would you go about sourcing this information if logical observation isn't good enough for you? Do we break out the Ouija board to contact the deceased illustrator? One would think that in the descriptor of the piece it could be mentioned that the aircraft has the appearance of a Mig-15, at least.... Besides, you had originally said to the OP that you need a reliable source for his theory of the author's intention to have one US-built aircraft attacking another US-built aircraft. It beggars belief that you would need to find a reference when something is clearly observable. 203.17.43.225 (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the core Wikipedia policy of No Original Research. Anyone on these pages can claim any expertise they wish to; even if such a claim were confirmable, Wikipedia does not allow personal observations. This is bedrock Wikipedia policy. Dude.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". If no-one was disputing the identity of the planes, I suppose it might technically be within the rules to make that claim without a source. However, given that people are disputing it, we would need a references to published sourcesfor any specific claims or counter-claims (E.g. "The Authorized Biography of Roy Lichtenstein says it was intended to be an F-86, but the Encyclopedia of Aircraft in Art claims that 'Anyone with half a brain can tell that it's actually a Mig-15'"). Given that this is a famous work, I would expect that someone somewhere has published a a description we can reference, so if anyone feels passionate enough about it, perhapse they could find one. (On an unrelated note - this thread got split around the GA Review link. I've fixed that. I've also adjusted the indents to make the thread easier to follow). Iapetus (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

excessive copyvio of text

The footnotes in this article contain an excessive amount of "quotes" of copyrighted material in the footnotes. For example:

• Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 104. "He modeled Whaam! on a panel from "Star Jockey"..., making several alterations that might at first seem insignificant but are in fact rather substantial. In the comic-strip panel (fig. 92), the central element is the airplane on the left, which has just scored a major victory over the enemy aircraft. Although it conveys the impact of the explosion, it shows the enemy plane smaller, at a distance, dominated by the huge letters of the exclamation "WHAAM!" whereas in Lichtenstein's version , the conquering plane and the exploding plane are given equal prominence. The painting balances the good guys against the bad guys, and is a far more compelling image as a result."
• Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 105. "The narrative balloon in the left-hand panel is relatively unobtrusive, as in the comic strip that inspired the painting, whereas the exclamation "WHAAM!," which Lichtenstein has turned into the visual equivalent of a sound effect, pentetrates the space of the painting through its overlapping letters and its superimposition over the image. The frondlike flames shooting out from the explosion are strictly ornamental, in contrast to the more straightforward, neutral image of the pilot and airplane, which carries the burden of the narrative."
• Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 104. "As Lichtenstein noted, he was interested in the fact that the images did note seem to relate compositionally to one another. He enforced this idea by creating two separate but contiguous panels. In the left-hand panel, the airplane and pilot are the predominant forms, with the narrative-text balloon consigned to a relatively insignificant position at the top of the canvas, and the airplane is depicted at a sharp diagonal to create the impression of depth. The right-hand panel is subdivided in another way, with the exclamation and the exploding plane competing with the dominant shape of the flames; the explosion is shown head-on, centered, and aligned with the horizontal and vertical axes of the canvas, rather akin to the neutral placement of the image in the single-object paintings. These different lines of force serve to reinforce Lichtenstein's depiction of the event as two separate parts of a sequence: an action, and the result of that action."
• Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 104. "Where the subjects in both Step-on-Can with Leg and Like New are essentially repetitive images with only minor changes, Whaam! is a painting composed of a a balanced asymmetry."
• Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 95. "Blam anticipates the resounding drama of subsequent war-comics paintings, culminating in such monumental canvases as Whaam! (fig. 90), 1963, and As I Opened Fire (fig. 91), 1964."
• Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 105. "The greater fragmentation results in an image even more abstract than the one in Whaam!"

• This doesn't count the long quotes from other copyrighted material in the footnotes. Nor the quotes in the article body.

• Waldman 1993 is also quoted extensively in other, related articles, e.g.Golf Ball and Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Girl with Ball, Girl with Ball, Bedroom at Arles, Girl in Mirror, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Little Big Painting, Drowning Girl and others. I'm concerned that copyrighted material by particular authors, Waldman being the example here, is overused in these articles on Lichenstein's individual works. The editor could put this information in his own words but does not. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tate Modern

The article says the painting was purchased by Tate Modern in 1966. Tate Modern opened in 2000. I've changed it to simply Tate until a more definitive fact can be given. Bazza (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

...which I have now done. Bazza (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception: Misrepresentation of source

The current articel text:

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 mythological 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".

The actual text of the referenced review:

Among his wittiest canvases are the close-ups of a housewife’s hand, engaged in domestic tasks such as spraying an aerosol cleaner or putting powder in the washing machine. Talk about pricking the pomposity of the Abstract Expressionists – who considered their own handwork, with the macho manoeuvrings of a paintbrush, the apex of creativity.

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 current article seems to be inferring criticisms that are not present in the original source, and completely misinterpreting some comments. (Yes, Smart is quite negative about the exhibition, but not for the reasons implied, and he seems to be mainly criticising Lichtenstein's later works). I might have a go at rewording it later, unless someone else gets to it first. The other reviews might also be worth checking, to make sure they are not being misrepresented as well. Iapetus (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Intro language

I would only ask that alluded-to ideas be made concrete. Wording such as "altering the relative significance of the various subjects of the work, both graphical and narrative" means what? In the next sentence is found reference to formal incongruence. I think we have to guess what this means because its meaning is not nailed down. This seems to be a summation in the intro of ideas that are probably scattered throughout the body of the article. But I am not sure it is clear. By the way much of the article is pretty good. I like the analysis of the painting in the body of the article and I suspect that the language we are discussing is in reference to some of the language that I find especially interesting in the body of the article. I am just questioning the value of what I find to be vague language in the intro. Reference to this edit and this edit. Bus stop (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a little opaque; I added a bit of Lichtenstein's own explanation from "Description" section. Ewulp (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! where there are a lot of eyes watching this right now. Note the content that is at issue is refereneced in the text by footnote 44.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—please feel free to post a link to this discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me focus on one word: "significance". It only appears once in the article. Yet we read about "altering the relative significance of the various subjects of the work, both graphical and narrative". I don't doubt that this alludes to one or more assertions found in the body of the article, but what type of "significance" are we referring to? Are we talking about the meaning in the work? Does "significance" refer to visual impact? Is "significance" merely a reference to relative size of various components? Whatever the case may be, it should be made clear in the intro, or it should be left out of the intro. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See Description section 3rd para.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed Ewulp (talk · contribs)'s change to the WP:LEAD. We have to remove the citation or fully cite the LEAD by adding WP:ICs to each fact. I prefer to remove the citation (and rework the text to remove the quote).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—I'm disappointed that you are saying so little. I wrote a few sentences trying to convey my concerns. Your response is "See Description section 3rd para." I understand you may be busy with other concerns. But your edit summary for this edit includes the message "if this is unclear lets work it out." I am only trying to improve the article. I think this article has some potential. I like some of the insights you've revealed. But it is a bit jumbled. Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. In my opinion an article on a work of art is primarily about that work. This means that most commentary should be considered peripheral to varying extents. Perhaps certain material belongs in or can already be found in other articles. I think this article should be reduced in length. As a work of art that could be considered, for lack of a better term, "cutting edge", it almost goes without saying that it likely defies easy interpretation. Therefore we should not speak of it in facile ways. The article unfortunately sticks the painting into cubbyholes in which it does not so neatly fit. There is too much preoccupation with its derivative status. That preoccupation is primarily couched in negative terms. Yes, there might have been those commentators who raised concerns about this. But the art world is far more sophisticated than to get hung up on this aspect of his paintings. You correctly focus on pop art's antithetical relationship to then prevalent abstract expressionistic concerns. But I feel that time and again the article returns to petty concerns of little importance. I'll stop now because I am not giving concrete examples of what I'm referring to. I hope I can help out. Bus stop (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

When I have both a WP:PR and an A-Class review open for an article I somewhat overlook the article talk. I apologize. I told you what page I was watching closely above and you still chose to write here. I'll get to this in a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—isn't the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! page for discussing this painting in "military" terms? I haven't touched upon any "military" concerns. I will post a note there alerting those editors that this active discussion is taking place. Bus stop (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• The PR will likely be closed today or tomorrow when Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎ passes and I can nominate this at WP:FAC which requires that all PRs be closed. Thus, the MILHIST A-Class review is the better place for ongoing commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Also, the MILHIST talk page is for any improvements that people in that project care about and they care about improving their articles to make WP:FA. Thus, anything that would help an article make FA is important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• In response to your claims that the article wanders a bit into places of questionable importance and relevance, I would suggest you review other articles at WP:FA. Critical review of a work of art is essential to the breadth of an article—especially presenting both the positive and negative elements. Within a day or two I will have my third painting and my sixth WP:WPVA work listed at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. Although I am no art scholar, I have some experience in this area. The content presented is well within the relavant topical boundaries, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Royalties

I'd suggest dropping "royalties" from "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". Yes, the sources mention royalties, but there are issues that the sources don't talk about. For one thing, a big issue in the American comics industry has been that artists typically didn't receive royalties. Why? Because they gave up their copyrights to the work they did entirely under their work for hire contracts. It is the publishers who owned the copyrights, so seeking royalties is something the artists couldn't legally do even with their unaltered artwork reproduced in the original comic books.

Take a look at Rian Hughes' quote: “Almost every painting [Lichstenstein] ever did was appropriated without asking permission or paying royalties. If he was a musician, he would be facing a copyright lawsuit,”. Well, there's the crux of the issue. They weren't musicians, they were work-made-for-hire comics artists who signed away their rights. Even giants such as Jack Kirby didn't get royalties, and other giants (such as Carl Barks) didn't even get credit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not understanding your point. Now, you are saying omit the point that criticism centers on lack of payment of royalties because although criticism centers on it, the argument does not make that much sense to you so rather than summarize the argument we should rationalize omitting it with WP:OR regarding Work for hire?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, criticism doesn't centre on royalties, it centres on lack of credit, which is why almost none of the sources mention royalties, and one of the two sources that does only mentions it more-or-less in passing (only Rian Hughes seems to be truly worked up about it). The royalties angle appears to be a fringe view. Including it in the Whaam! article would blow it way out of proportion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Two of the last three citations in that paragraph mention royalties alongside credit. What do you mean by fringe view?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fringe. Tony, you have one blog that quotes Hughes as I have above—the only unambiguous statement of someone who has issues with no royalties being paid. Then, you have the Comics Alliance article, which starts with: "Imagine you drew a comic book for a nominal fee and a world-famous artist recreated in paint a panel from that work and sold it for millions of dollars without you receiving any credit or royalties." The article then goes on to quote a number of comics professionals who are upset over lack of attribution and over the behaviour of the Lichtenstein foundation. None of them mention royalties—the writer of the article clearly drew a conclusion that was nowhere in the evidence presented. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is something of a reference of it in the Comics Alliance article: "it just really bothers me that nothing is given to the original artists." Still pretty flimsy evidence that it's a widely held view. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This entire assertion should be dropped: "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources…" Do you have a source which says that Lichtenstein failed to credit comic book artists who provided images that contributed to his painting Whaam!? If not, then the failure to credit part should be dropped too. This assertion—"Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources…"—is not about the painting Whaam!, and the two sources supporting that assertion do not support the assertion in relation to the painting Whaam!. This source does not mention Whaam! at all. This source mentions Whaam! only in passing, saying "His paintings are worth millions, and even those with little knowledge of or interest in art will instantly recognise prints such as Whaam! and Drowning Girl." TonyTheTiger has cautioned me against adding material from sources that do not talk about Whaam! specifically. The principle should be that material not specifically related to Whaam! should be left out of this article. Other articles exist—the Roy Lichtenstein article and the Appropriation (art) article—for material about Lichtenstein's general relation to comic book artists. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Gravett and BBC certainly do (as Bus Stop is fully aware). The two cites now being used should be replaced by these better, more specific ones. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish you guys who are topical experts would swap in better citations. If you have a chance please do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The "better citations" I would swap in don't have any mention of royalties. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just please swap in better sources if you know of them. You are free to remove royalties while doing so. If high-quality WP:RS don't mention the term, there is little reason to retain it in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The wording "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources" fails to address the painting Whaam!. Curly Turkey says that "The Gravett and BBC certainly do"[1]. If you believe that to be the case, then please formulate wording, supported by Gravett/BBC that addresses the painting Whaam!. Bear in mind what we find at Gravett and BBC.

At "BBC" we find Dave Gibbons saying "A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist."

At "Gravett" we find Dave Gibbons saying "That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick".

But there is more, because both "Gravett" and "BBC" are not entirely in agreement with Dave Gibbons. For instance at "BBC", Alastair Sooke writes: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways. In general, he wanted to simplify and unify the image, to give it more clarity as a coherent work of art." This, I would contend, is a refutation of Dave Gibbons.

And at "Gravett" we find these two statements by Paul Gravett: 1.)"To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption", and 2.)"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!"

What these additional quotes are showing us is that neither the "BBC" source nor the "Gravett" source is entirely in agreement with the assertions of Dave Gibbons. Our article should be clear about who is criticizing Lichtenstein's allegedly improper use of comic book imagery in relation to the painting Whaam!. It is Dave Gibbons alone who alleges that there is impropriety in the origin of Whaam!'s imagery. It is not the "BBC", and it is not Alastair Sooke, and it is not even Paul Gravett. Yet our paragraph, found in the Reception section, which begins on the wording "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…" does not mention Dave Gibbons at all. This is misleading. The sources, especially the "BBC" source, do not concur with Dave Gibbons. Our wording should accurately reflect that assertions of "criticism" regarding the imagery found in Whaam! emanates only from Dave Gibbons. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I for one have no intention of feeding your filibusters anymore, and will hereforth quit responding. The onus is on you to build consensus around your POV. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you are causing everyone to WP:TLDR your comments or as has happened with Hiding (talk · contribs), just give up on participating. Please cut your comments down to some size where normal discussants are willing to take the time to consider them. I am TLDRing your comment above just like Curly Turkey did.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you only have Dave Gibbons' criticism of Whaam!. You can source Dave Gibbons' criticism to paulgravett.com. You should not be attempting to use this article to bring negative commentary about Lichtenstein's use of imagery in other paintings because doing so would violate WP:NPOV, not to mention be outside of the natural scope of this article. It would violate WP:NPOV because I am not going to try to load this article up with sourced information from prominent sources that argue that there is little relationship between Lichtenstein's many paintings and related images made by comic book artists. I have already brought such sources to the FAC but here is another. This book is published by the Museum of Modern Art. Note that the following quoted material is not about the painting Whaam!:

"Many in Lichtenstein's audience of the early 1960s considered the subjects of his paintings to have been no more tampered with than Duchamp's store-bought objects—images lifted almost intact from their commercial sources. It was a reaction the artist was looking for: "The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content." But, he added, "I think my paintings are critically transformed." Girl with Ball's deviations from its ready-made inspiration amply bear out Lichtenstein's assessment. On the most obvious level, a shift in scale from a one-column newspaper advertisement to a life-size image, combined with a transition from black-and-white printed reproduction on newspaper stock to Mondrian-like harmonies of red, yellow, and blue on canvas, necessarily produces an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source. Aside from these elemental changes, the artist manipulated the girl's figure to endow the painting with something of the visual impact of hard-edge abstract painting. To paraphrase Lichtenstein, he was at the time aiming at "anti-Cubist" composition, defined by him as the isolation of an "object on a blank ground," thus defying "the major direction of art since the early Renaissance, which has more and more symbolized the integration of 'figure' with 'ground."[2]

You are attempting to put into this this article material not specific to the painting Whaam!. But doing so is in violation of WP:NPOV unless balancing material is also included. The above source clearly describes the level of transformation from a "commercial" source to a painting. But I am not going to try to bring balancing sources such as the above to this article. Therefore WP:NPOV is not achievable in this article. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have eliminated the term royalties. Please resume other conversations at FAC2. Bus stop, please keep your comments to a reasonable length during this FAC. I don't want to use the TLDR at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Written expression

1. "Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein." Badly expressed.
2. "Whaam! is a diptych painted by American artist Roy Lichtenstein in 1963." Well expressed.

The second sentence costs precisely one more letter than the first sentence. Why is it better?

• It doesn't treat the date as an adjective. "A 1963 diptych" is a shorthand way of saying "A diptych painted in 1963". A numerical date doesn't apply as an adjective, unless it is an integral part of the label of the object as in "The 1963 Financial Statement". The abbreviated form of writing is useful to journalists whose editors are counting the column inches. No-one is doing that here.
• "Diptych painting" has a redundancy as diptychs are almost always painting (except during the Byzantine period). Since you want your reader, who may not know what a diptych is, to understand that is is a painting, use "painted" as a verb, and they will get it.
• By the inclusion of the tiny word "in", the date belongs to the action of painting, and the sentence become correct.

Amandajm (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You are free to make constructive grammatical edits like that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There are loads of sculpted diptychs in the Middle Ages and earlier, in ivory etc, so "Diptych painting" is fine. See consular diptych etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony, it's boring! I wrote this here so that who ever wrote it in the first place won't need me to fix it next time. Johnbod, most of the post Byzantine works are triptychs, (as you know, of course). "Diptych painted by...." is the better option. Amandajm (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Diptych or not?

This edit has changed "diptych" to "two panel/dual panel" on the basis that diptyches are hinged. As far as I can see, this isn't a distinction maintained in the sources:

• [44] "Roy Lichtenstein: Drawing for 'Whaam!' 1963". Tate.org. Going there, I find: "His original idea had been for a single canvas, but the diptych concept (embodied in [Whaam!]) developed as he worked on this drawing."
• [57] Coplans 1972, p. 39: "... Whaam I (1963), on the other hand, is a diptych with a clearly linked pictorial narrative ..." (NB this is already quoted in the article's footnotes)
• [71] Steiner, Wendy (1987). Pictures of Romance: Form against Context in Painting and Literature. University Of Chicago Press. pp. 161–164. ISBN 0-226-77229-2. Going to Google Books, I read there: "Perhaps Lichtenstein's most harmonious marriage of word and image and time and space is the narrative diptych Whaam!..."

After finding three sources from the article that call it a diptych, I stopped, but not before I had seen Sooke, who is used as a source in the article though in a link I can't access from the UK, calling it "a diptych that is a perennial crowd-pleaser in the Tate". Should we go by what the sources say, or what Pusancairo (talk · contribs) thinks? Bencherlite^Talk 10:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms defines diptych as "A picture consisting of two separate panels facing each other and usually joined at the centre by a hinge." By this definition the hinge is optional. At www.merriam-webster.com, three definitions are given including "3: a work made up of two matching parts". The term is routinely used by art critics, art historians, and artists to describe contemporary paintings consisting of two abutting panels; its use in this article seems appropriate. Ewulp (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a diptych, per above, per WP:DUCK, per WP:UCS and per the sources among other things...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree - Similar Francis Bacon works are often called diptychs (or triptychs) , including by WP. So long as they are meant to be displayed pretty close up to each other it's ok. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult but the http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/glossary/diptych says "...A diptych is a painting or relief carving made of two parts, which are usually joined by hinges. They are -> invariably small in size <-" so even if the hinges are optional the size of Whaam! should disqualify it. Anyway I don't much care; if everybody else calls it a diptych it's unlikely I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusancairo2 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

it is a diptych. It doesn't have to be hinged to be a diptych. What Ewulp, Modernist. Johnbod say is correct. Amandajm (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lichtenstein's adaptation

So let me see if I got this straight: Roy Lichtenstein took this panel from a comic book, expanded it, repainted it, added elements from other panels from the same series, then made money off of it without crediting the original artists? And they don't mind? Brutannica (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You got as far as the penultimate paragraph, I take it? Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes... it's just kind of hard to believe. Any idea what the original artists had to say? Brutannica (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

this is wrong

this is false brushing hair is good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6406:CC01:255B:C85C:2D08:FDE6 (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The visual arts MoS recommends 300px for lede images and has been in use for 10 years. [3]...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is a featured article and the imagery and the lede should be respected...Modernist (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The maximum image display reaches to 400px. I'll propose a change over there soon. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I support the standard convention of 300px for the lead of WP:WPVA images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We shall not do a force width on all users, modernist and Tony. We should use "upright" instead per WP:IMGSIZE. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, upright is appropriate for portrait images, not landscape.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, IMO upright is appropriate in article text imagery; not necessary in ledes...Modernist (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad, modernist and Tony. I should have said "Upright=#.##", like "Upright=1.35" (i.e. 35% larger than preferred size, like 300px or 220px). Which scale do you want? George Ho (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi George Ho yes, what I'm saying is that ledes should be 300px in general...Modernist (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't wanna view it that small, Modernist. I want to change from "px" to a scaling factor. That goes for all readers with various preferences. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whaam!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606071341/http://lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112223049/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002013823/http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft to http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002102214/http://blog.comicsgrid.com/2011/04/whaam-becoming-a-flaming-star/ to http://blog.comicsgrid.com/2011/04/whaam-becoming-a-flaming-star/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224221517/http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Who+opposed+a+%C2%A34%2C665+Lichtenstein%3F/28512 to http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Who+opposed+a+%C2%A34%2C665+Lichtenstein%3F/28512

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Putting source material in summary

I added the source material for the painting to the opening summary, and somebody reverted it, claiming that they were doing so in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. But I checked the Manual, and it doesn’t appear that there’s anything in there that indicates the source material for the image doesn’t belong in the summary.

The source material is given in the summary for other significant paintings by Lichtenstein, such as “As I Opened Fire”, as it is in other paintings and other derivative works such as films and books. But in this one, the original artists whose work the painting is derived from aren’t credited until midway through the article. This strikes me as highly misleading, as it implies the art is completely original to Lichtenstein. It would be equivalent to removing the name of Tolkien from the summary for Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films.

So if anyone can indicate in the MOS where it says original artists shouldn’t get credited in works such as this, that’s fine, but if not, I’ll add it back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.8 (talk • contribs) 20:11, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Your edit had this for the lead sentence: "Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by the American artist Roy Lichtenstein based on original comic panels by Russ Heath and Jerry Grandenetti." This is a poor summation of the content of the article, which states that the image is based on a panel by Irv Novick, and that "Paul Gravett suggests that Lichtenstein substituted the attacking plane with an aircraft from "Wingmate of Doom" illustrated by Jerry Grandenetti ... and that the target plane was borrowed from a Russ Heath drawing". Unlike As I Opened Fire, Look Mickey, and some other derivative works, Whaam! evidently derives elements from a few different sources. Our second paragraph explains that "Lichtenstein conceived the image from several comic-book panels. He transformed his primary source, a panel from a 1962 war comic book..." which covers the complex situation in summary fashion consistent with WP:DETAIL. Note that the lead section of Look Mickey does not mention Bob Grant and Bob Totten by name, nor does the lead section of Drowning Girl mention Tony Abruzzo and Ira Schnapp, nor does the lead section of Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein) mention Martin Branner. Ewulp (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You know what, that’s fair. I only checked a couple of other Lichtenstein articles, and I guess I just happened to run into the ones that mentioned the source material in the summary. And I admit I seem to have overlooked Novick. Forgive me, I suppose I’m a bit of an amateur. With that in mind, I propose we add all three artists to the summary, and edit the other Lichtenstein articles appropriately, with the original artists credited, as is the Wikipedia standard for derivative art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.22.8 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There might be a good case for mentioning Novick; the others are problematical for a few reasons. If you check the sources in our article, you'll see that the derivation of Lichtenstein's composition from the Novick panel is mentioned by several sources; the contributions of Grandenetti and Heath are sourced only to Paul Gravett's article "The Principality of Lichtenstein: From 'WHAAM!' to 'WHAAT?'" On the basis of visual evidence, the appropriation from Grandenetti seems unmistakeable, but the borrowing from Heath is speculative, and in any case not very significant. Gravett goes further: "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.'"

A few points about this: those are a lot of names to pack into the lead section, it seems more detail than needed in a summary, and we don't have robust sourcing for anybody other than Irv Novick. I would add that this article, like Look Mickey and Drowning Girl, is a featured article, and passed a rather rigorous FA Review in which the question of how much emphasis to give to the derivative nature of the work and the ethics of the matter were debated at length (here's the FA review). During all of that discussion, nobody ever suggested putting the names in the lead, so the consensus seems to be to keep the opening simple, and we usually don't tamper much with featured articles. Let's see if anybody else joins this discussion. Ewulp (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this some form of plagiarism?

Did Lichtenstein pay Novick? Or just rip him off? Can you just copy somebody else's work, get rich off of it, and not give the other guy whose work you copied any money? Carlo (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)