Talk:Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock?

message: I think the title of thise page should be changed to an edited version, but show up in searches for the original name. And, the name should be used within the article for the sake of full disclosure. Any suggestions? --InvisibleDiplomat666 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because this is against policy, as we've already notified you on your talk page. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the title on the poster is edited. It seems to be a weak dilusion of what the original author of the cited work intended. Great debating skills btw. --InvisibleDiplomat666 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb lists it as fuck.  It would help to know what the title screen of the movie itself says.  Also, do not insult people by calling their opinions "dilusions" or calling into question their debating skills.  For someone who claims to know policy, you seem to be quite adept at ignoring it. The359 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Twaz might have meant to say "weak dilution", in the sense that using the alternative title is only a slight deviation from the filmmaker's intent.  Wikipedia is not a debating club.  We're here to build an encyclopedia. Bovlb (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: So IMDB lists the title as "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?" as does the title screen of the film, so why is title listed incorrectly here? 65.188.175.244 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Done.  Thanks for pointing that out.  It seems clear from IMDB and from the various screen captures of the case and movie poster that the title is "#$&%".  Unfortunately the # cannot be reproduced in titles on Wikipedia due to technical limitations, but I have replaced it with a * and added a note.  I think this may have been why the word substitution was made in the first place, but it seems there is no validation for the word replacement.  Don't know why this conclusion wasn't reached earlier. -- Renesis (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely was originally 'fuck', not sure when it became minced. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: "As it turned out, Teri Horton's painting which was authenticated by Peter Paul Biro, in fact sold for $50 million.[9]" 
This is simply incorrect.  Two points: 
# Biro's credibility is, to say the least, questionable.  His "authentication" of the painting is far from generally accepted.
# The cite given, ^ "Renowned Forensic Art Inspector Sues The New Yorker For Calling Him A Fake" by Julie Zeveloff, Business Insider, July 6, 2011, does not state anywhere the the painting has been sold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss shark (talk • contribs) 
:this does though. The thing with the floor alignment, if true, I don't recall ever hearing of it, would cause it to be snapped up and likely by an anonymous buyer as with the Salvator Mundi Leonardo. If you are sure of the value/transaction, your ability to realize your investment in the future but the current state is ambiguous, low profile, anonymity is to be expected and unlike the Leonardo, not a flashy historical tx. It may not be a great Pollock and may have even been discarded by the artist but the backstory would assure high value. At some near point though it's sure to be known (if it sold). Is Horton even alive? 98.4.124.117 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of painting