# Talk:Mirth & Girth

Where is the painting now? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression the tear was never repaired, and the painting tossed. (Alternatively, it may have been kept as evidence for the federal lawsuit to follow.) I don't think the issue has been investigated since the conclusion of the case. —Rob (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the reaction of the black aldermen just doesn't make much sense without an in-depth look at Jewish-African American race relations, which, obviously, is a much bigger subject than this article.
How should it be addressed? —Rob (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In your research, did any of the articles mention Nelson's ethnicity? I've skimmed a few articles in ProQuest and they don't say much about the painter. Seems like it might be worth mentioning if it can be found. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the response articles states that Nelson said that he is not a Jew, which is in itself an odd thing to put in the paper. So there's nothing to address between the artist and the aldermen. I did feel that the allegation brought up one of the issues of race in the event, though, so I addressed it in a single paragraph beneath the {{details}} template. I think what's there is a good balance now.
The article is up for peer review now, but it's headed for a GA nom and to a copyedit team soon. —Rob (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I was looking for something like white, black or something similar. I guess it can be inferred that if he had to specifically say he wasn't Jewish, that must mean he was a white person. That item seems to be missing from the articles I looked at. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As for GA issues, I've had problems with fair use rationale's in the past during a GA, you might consider improving the one for the artwork using Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Template or Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Non-template. One thing I noticed is that the source of the image is not specified, clearly it is an image of the artwork, but usually the rationale includes where the actual image file came from, which is going to be different from the copyright holder in this case. Wikipedia:NFCC 10a mentions this. Someone might balk at that during a GA. --22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find this? —Rob (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold Washington Library seems to carry every issue since summer 1985. [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I found it, but it wasn't quite as useful a resource as I hoped it would be. That said, I added the information I could glean. —Rob (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As much as it's an actual reference. . . Nelson was well known and reputed to make things up as he went along to play with media/audience. It was never a cigarette, but always a pencil. Pink tip, metal band, and the yellow body of a pencil. --68.77.7.250 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article can now be considered content-complete. It could also use some more images, but obtaining them has been difficult. —Rob (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.

Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Yes - I want to know if all the topics that "Mirth & Girth" covers a treated equally and fairly. It's difficult to do with as many hot-button topics there are, but I still want to know. :-) —Rob (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
I do not write too much outside of Wikipedia, but when I do (blogs, etc.) I like to use complete sentences and have things make sense. —Rob (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
Not... really? Maybe the ones I'm most active with, notably WP:USRD but writing about roads and writing about inflammatory issues are two completely different things. —Rob (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
A> IMO, "Discussion of the controversy on "Chicago Tonight"" is an WP:UNDUE. B> How is this related to the painting "Allan Streeter continued serving as alderman until his guilty plea in 1996 to charges of extortion and filing a false tax return in connection with Operation Silver Shovel, an FBI-led corruption probe that resulted in the convictions of five other aldermen.[27][28] Dorothy Tillman continued to serve the 3rd ward until her re-election defeat in 2007, in part due to gentrification of her ward.[29] Bobby Rush later ran for, and won, the seat for Illinois' 1st congressional district. He was re-elected in 2008 and continues to serve in Congress.[30]The SAIC was rocked by another major controversy in February 1989. Artist Scott Tyler, under the pseudonym "Dread Scott", created an exhibit entitled "What is the Proper Way to Display the American Flag?" The exhibit consisted of pictures and a ledge above an American flag. Visitors used the ledger to record their responses to the work; however, to do so, visitors were required to step on the flag. Angry military veterans groups protested the exhibit for days before threats to the student body and the building forced the closure of the exhibit on February 27, 1989."
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The article is more about the controversy than the painting itself. More about the style of painting, something similar to "Aesthetics" in Mona Lisa is required.
"Nelson v. Streeter" is reaction to the painting, UNDUE details about arguments and counter arguments in court are presented.
ON HOLD.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the trick of it... in the end, the uproar and notability of the painting came neither from the artist nor the painting, but from the controversy spawned from the painting itself. "Mirth & Girth" just happened to be the device by which the controversy came about. If the preferred title should be Mirth & Girth controversy, that's what it can be, but to me that seems really awkward. —Rob (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will wait for RFC and then decide.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
My only concern now is the UNDUEs to "Nelson v. Streeter", "Chicago Night" and "Aftermath". Aftermath should close with the painting, other incidents are UNDUE.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that. Since the article is more about the controversy than about the painting, I reasoned that a proper conclusion to the article would summarize what happened to the most important elements of the controversy; that being the painting, the aldermen, and the school (hence the Dred Scott mention; the two incidents are linked closer in time than in cause, but the two incidents together did result in some changes to the SAIC). —Rob (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if the "Nelson v. Streeter" is considered valid, the other 2 are definitely UNDUE. What happened of the senators is an UNDUE, the institution incident is OK.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get it why a para is dedicated to discussion on a show - Chicago Tonight??? The article doesn't discuss what other shows or media says, and need not do so. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(indent reset) The "Chicago Tonight" show was dedicated solely to Mirth & Girth and the controversy that followed, so it at least should be mentioned. Further, I have lots of multiple-sourced information in the article about responses from other parties involved in the incident (the SAIC, students, the ACLU, other organizations), but the reaction in the African-American segment of the Chicago population was (in my opinion) underreported. The fact that Streeter, being both an instigator and representative of the African-American community, articulated the reasons and rationale behind the painting's seizure gives this particular subsection top priority in the article. To not do so would tilt the argument of WP:UNDUE to the other side. —Rob (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Chicago Tonight is (JUST) an evening television news program broadcast weeknights on WTTW in Chicago. Chicago Tonight reports primarily on local news and presents features showcasing local artists and events." There must be n no of news shows like this in USA, which may have discussed the painting. Why stress on reactions of Streeter in the show and denote a para to it?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There may be any # of shows like Chicago Tonight in the U.S. (particularly where public television stations are concerned), but this particular show discussed this particular topic rather extensively, compared to the summarized bits in most of the other parts of the article. Nonetheless, I'll see what WP:CHICAGO thinks of it. —Rob (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As GA reviewer, i felt "The article is more about the controversy than the painting itself." Is the article addressing major aspects, that a Visual Arts (Painting) should have? 
Thanks for your response.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled on this article when poking around the GA nom page. I found it very interesting and read it all, and left a message on the principal author's talk page saying so. I'm an artist and someone interested in freedom of expression, but I've never been to Chicago and I had never heard of this controversy. My comment here is - what name would people look for to find this article? Neither "Mirth & Girth" nor "Mirth & Girth controversy" would ever strike me as something to search for. But then, I don't know what would apply. Are there naming guidelines for works of art? The material regarding the froofraw over 2 Live Crew's album is under 2 Live Crew. Reaction to "Guernica" is in its own article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the basic parts of this article were originally located in Harold Washington, but more than a few folk got all bent out of shape over including the image in the article, and apparently 'denigrating the man's memory.' To me, the forceful and angry commentary for removal seemed (and seems still) a large steaming pile of pov-pushing crap. Lpanglerob has done some excellent work on expanding the article here, so that this article is actually in better shape than the article on Washington. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Arcayne Yeah, I'd still make that decision. You have to ask "What did Harold Washington have to do with this?" and find that the answer is, "not much." Which I hope I elaborated on in the article. On a related note, Harold Washington is now 44 KB, and Mirth & Girth 38 KB -- I'd wanted to promote both at once and send them to FAC as a duo of related articles, but the fact that the Washington article will most likely be 70 KB in size or more precludes that at this time.
Re: Guernica As the incident occurred in March 1987, all of the news sources are a bit dated, but a number of sources seemed to indicate it reached the national level of consciousness, if only for a day. Art magazines bounced around the idea for a little longer (which is why the New Art Examiner issue was from the summer after) because of the 1st Amendment implications.
In general, I don't think this sort of controversy can be found somewhere else, which is why I don't feel that standard rules of paintings should apply to this one. Articles about the technical nature of the painting don't exist, because the painting's point was to generate controversy, which it did. That most reactions in the media investigated the 1st Amendment implications more than the racial implications was both unsurprising and somewhat saddening, given who Washington was. —Rob (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Something in the same vein happened with Mapplethorpe in the late 90's, but I think that M&G is pretty unique in just about every way. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it expounds on the stylistic and thematic points that an art scholar would be looking for, but from the perspective of WP:CHICAGO, the article describes everything someone would be looking for at the WP:GA level.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Responding from a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. I found it an excellent article and written from NPOV. A lot of art writing is about context and consequences, as much, if not more, than about the technical aspects of the work. The article has to be mainly about the controversy and the legal ramifications, all of which resulted from the iconography. I don't see any problem with naming the article after the painting, as it was the painting that generated all of this.  
Having said that, however, it would add to the article's completeness to include some more information directly about the work, the artist and his background, and to put it in the context of his other work, rather than the painting standing in isolation. 
This is useful material: "Five of Nelson`s other works were hung alongside the Washington painting. One was a self-portrait, I'm Sensitive, and I Love All Humanity. It depicts Nelson holding little people, apparently of many nationalities, in his arms. 'This kind of irreverence and iconoclasm runs through all my artwork,' he explained in the interview. 'That self-portrait . . . I was questioning the motives and values of the whole We are the World syndrome. 'This Harold Washington thing wasn't an isolated thing.' Indeed, the Washington caricature is not his first. He also has done caricatures of his parents, he said. 'For Mother's Day a few years ago, I did a drawing of my mother as Whistler`s mother, and for my father, I drew his face as the man on the Cream of Wheat box.' 

For my sake, I'm keeping track the concerns I have doted to in the article here. I think I've addressed this paragraph. —Rob (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that he painted it whilst in his underwear himself should be mentioned. It shows something about his relationship with the work during its creation. Also that he was about to get his degree.
There are some interpretations of refs which need to be adjusted. The lead says "caricature". Ref 2 does not support that (although later refs do). It describes the work as "a painting of former Mayor Harold Washington in female undergarments" (other refs have "frilly lingerie"): that description needs to be there—it is not just any old caricature, but has specific features.

The first part of this para has been addressed. —Rob (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 
At the moment the article says, "fellow students described Nelson as a 'prankster'", while the ref states:"Students were divided in their views of the artist and his work. Some described Nelson as a 'very sarcastic' artistic trickster, a satirical illustrator who put together a funny April Fool's edition of the student newspaper, and as someone who liked to get attention. Their assessments of the painting ranged from a political caricature to 'whimsy' to a show of commercial genius that has earned him national attention." 
The article says, "Van Amerongen, a sculpture teacher at the Art Institute, implied the painting was merely a caricature". That is an interpretation of the ref (particularly the word "merely"), which says: 'He's done a caricature of me,' said his sculpture teacher at the School of the Art Institute, John Van Amerongen. 'The kid's got a sense of humor',

This paragraph has been addressed. —Rob (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ty 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I've finally got some time to integrate this into the article. I've heard this event called, with separate sources, an exhibition, a competition, and a jury. For the benefit of the readers, I think I'll use the Schlesinger-referenced "fellowship exhibition", but also mention the competition was judged. —Rob (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's everything. Now the hard part is reviewing the article to see if all of the concepts are in the right places. —Rob (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
GA_PASS--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the New Art Examiner apparently claimed it was a cigarette, the painting clearly shows it's a pencil. What I've read of the painting and history of the controversy also say it's a pencil. The pencil is also a much more critical remark of Washington than just a cigarette prop. Then there's the impossibility that Nelson himself had an autographed cigarette prop. Speculation aside, here is a reference I have from my personal collection:

An important iconographic element is a pencil he is clutching in his right hand, a reference to the fact that he dropped a pencil when he had his heart attack. Aides thought he was reaching to pick it up when he slumped over, fatally stricken.
--68.77.7.250 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to place both interpretations in there, but I would resist dropping the "cigarette" mention if only because it's ambiguous (honestly, I could see both in his hand... unless you've managed to find the full-sized painting somewhere), and because I find it hard to believe that the New Art Examiner would be wrong. (Michael Sneed wrote about it in the Sun-Times too, but that's because he received an advance copy of the issue.)
There's the possibility Nelson was flat out lying about having the cigarette prop, but I don't have a reliable source to back that up. It is equally possible that he used the picture of Washington with a cigarette prop (that may or may not have been his) to draw the picture of Washington with a pencil/cigarette. I'll take a look at the article and see how the issue can be resolved. —Rob (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the edit. The main issue is that David Nelson has said so little about the painting after the controversy that more weight should be given to his actual words about the painting. But I am leaning towards tuning the article so that it says that he is holding a pencil, and that the painting was based on an existing picture of Washington holding a cigarette prop at the mentioned American Cancer Society event. The sources can (and do) back this interpretation, because no less than 3 reliable sources say that Washington is holding a pencil, even if it turns out that all 3 may have misinterpreted the object.
Before I do anything else, I'd like to get some feedback on this proposition. —Rob (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made that change. I think that should resolve this issue. —Rob (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think what you did works well. The "pencil" POV is what we were taught at SAIC and what the school's historians maintain. If I can find them in my materials, there are reliable sources that question Nelson's own reliability; he was often ambiguous, misleading, and deceptive as part of his "iconoclastic" philosophy. --68.77.7.250 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The last edit I made separated the description of the painting from its motive. The painting, however, has two bases. The first, which I called "iconoclastic", referred to Washington's clothing in the painting. It cited the rumor at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
The second, which I called "structural", referred to the original American Cancer Society picture that showed Washington holding a cigarette. Nelson has said that he based the painting on that picture, i.e. the general look of Washington in the picture was similar to the general look of Washington in the painting, iconoclastic elements aside. I'm pretty sure the word isn't "structural" -- what is it? —Rob (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Representational? Representative? --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I like that. I'll put that in there when I get home unless someone comes up with something else. —Rob (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Structural" reads oddly in both cases. I have substituted the commonly used terminology.[2] Ty 00:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Slartibartfast-y. That doesn't work anywhere else outside of a Doug Adams book, but maybe, like a broken watch, it will be right for here. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the current mention (and 3 paragraphs worth) of Chicago Tonight interview summary place undue weight on that interview? —Rob (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is not with the length, but with the fact that the whole three paragraphs are cite with a single article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I think I'll try to rewrite that subsection and integrate it into the other section, with some other African-American responses. But so far as I know, there aren't all that many. —Rob (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This text is going here for the time being. It will be summarized in this article, but the existing text can be incorporated into separate article on the case itself. —Rob (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


### Original text
In the appeal, decided February 1, 1994, Chief Appellate Court Judge Richard Posner, along with Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook and Michael Stephen Kanne affirmed Lindberg's earlier decision. Writing for the court, Posner outlined and rejected each of the defendants' claims in his opinion.
Posner rejected the defendants' claims of official immunity. The aldermen claimed that at the time, they did not know their actions would be a constitutional breach. Posner framed the issue by asking "whether in 1988 the law was clear that local government officials may not go onto private property without invitation (the aldermen had not been invited to the exhibition of student work), seize a painting that they do not like because it vilifies a public official with whom they had been associated, and wrap it in brown paper and remove it so that no one can see it. To ask the question is pretty much to answer it." He also further established that as officials, the city had no right to enter private property and take "offensive" paintings off its walls. He also rejected the argument that removing paintings from walls was an official duty.
In the opinion, one of the arguments of the defendants was that they were removing the painting to save Chicago from devastating racial riots that the continued showing of the painting may have started. The argument was rejected based on testimony that Tillman would rather have burned the painting, and that there was no mob. In addition, the court found that because Nelson had not intended to provoke a riot, the First Amendment could still be used to protect his speech.
The appellate court also faulted the district judge for allowing "more than a year and a half elapsed before the filing and disposition of the motions for summary judgment". Posner noted in his opinion that "the governing principles are clear, the facts have been explored exhaustively, and the defendants should be aware that efforts to mount a last-ditch, no-holds-barred defense may simply increase their liability for the plaintiff's attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988." He then affirmed the district court's decision.

On May 17 2008, a user made an edit putting the label "white" before Timothy C. Evans and "black" before Eugene Sawyer saying the change was made to "make racial implications more explicit".  Um, there were no racial implications there, not least because Timothy Evans is also black.  I don't think the user was a vandal, but they just got that idea in their head and didn't check it out through Google or anything, and worse, labeled their change "minor".  :-P  TresÁrboles (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mirth & Girth. 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/20080723194147/http://www.projectposner.org/case/1994/16F3d145 to http://www.projectposner.org/case/1994/16F3d145
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515225219/http://ncac.org/art-law/op-nel.cfm to http://www.ncac.org/art-law/op-nel.cfm
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) 22:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)