Talk:Bob Ross/Archive 1

message: wasn't bob ross in vietnam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.137.24.32 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam

message: Okay, everyone, I will be reuploading the picture with the "Legal" Version. Read the following to understand:
Hello Carson,
Thank you for your interest in Bob Ross and the Joy of Painting; it's a
pleasure to hear from so many of his friends! I apologize for the amount of
time it has taken to respond.
Attached you'll find a photo to use with your Bob Ross wikipedia article.
Please include the following:
"(c) Bob Ross Inc.  Reprinted with permission"
Also, in reviewing your copy about Bob, I see two small errors to correct.
(1) Bob's death was a result of Lymphoma, and (2) instead of saying "PBS"
stations you should call them "public television" stations -- PBS is only
one subcategory in the entire public television system as a whole.
Hope this has been helpful, be sure to contact us if you need more (this
time I'll be more punctual!).
Happy Painting,
Joan Kowalski
Bob Ross Co.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carson True" <crtrue@gmail.com>
To: <info@bobross.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:02 AM
Subject: Request for Public Domain / Limited Copyright Image of Bob Ross
> I am inquering as to if either A) a public domain photograph of Bob
> Ross exists or B) a one-site use of an image of Bob Ross can be agreed
> upon. I am currently working on the Bob Ross article on Wikipedia, the
> largest open-source encyclopedia online, and was curious if either of
> these were possible. A limited Wikipedia-only copyright can be granted
> to a photo if you're concerned about the image spreading prematurely,
> although a public domain image would be prefered.
>
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross
>
> --
> Carson
>
CRTrue —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 21 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for going to the trouble, CRTrue!  I've taken the liberty of copying this item to , since now it's also referenced in the entries for the TV show and the upcoming videogame.Rob T Firefly 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Response from Bob Ross INC Over Image 

message: Here we go. This page is now just a redirect to the main Bob Ross page. This should suit the purpose much more than having a disamgbig that really didn't do anything, since I just now started the article for the other Bob Ross (a moderate gay rights publisher who just died a few years back). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.59.250 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be Bold? 

message: I'm pretty sure it was Bob Ross being parodied in the Dilbert episode Art. Dilbert, Dogbert and Ratbert were watching Painting with Rusty Shanks where Rusty, in a calm voice, asked viewers to paint a taupe oval, represented by an orange circle. He was eventually killed by Leonardo da Vinci's henchmen.
----
I look at the dvd and it did look like him --67.180.138.205 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody? 

message: This page says the show ran from 1982 to 1993, while The Joy of Painting articlw says it ran from 1983 to 1994. Which is correct? BillyH 09:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, I believe Bob Ross' show was actually called "Joy of Painting II".  The original "Joy of Painting" was on the air in the seventies, and featured Ross' teacher, Bill Alexander (who also talked about "happy little trees", in a heavy German accent.)  I bought a DVD from the Bob Ross website, and the opening credits of the show read "Joy of Painting II".  (The word "The" does not appear.)
Fumblebruschi 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also remember Bill Alexander's show, and this is very important info that should be corrected!
Could it be that the Roman numerals refer to the show's season? Because I have tapped a couple of episodes, and there the cpation reads "The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross XV". Including the "the" and the Roman XV. Blur4760 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Joy of Painting 

message: Are these links legit? I'm sure it's a very nice company, but is it an "official" or well known Bob Ross source, or is it link spam? Jake b 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kabucas.com 

message: AGFRAG has since announced that the game will be appearing only on the Nintendo Wii. -al 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed mentions of Bob Ross Game For DS and PC 

message: I removed the assertion that Bob Ross was a lifelong friend of Anthony Cumia.  The first mention of Cumia in this article came from an anonymous entry stating Bob "visted Vietnam according to Anthony Cumia."  This line was later moved and changed to him being a lifelong friend.  As Bob was 21 years his senior, I don't see how he could have been a life-long friend.  Perhaps it was just a joke.  If I am wrong, please add it back and cite a source if at all possible.  Arx Fortis 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ides that Bob Ross even knew about a tasteless "shock jock" like Anthony Cumia is extreamly hard to believe. 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, let's keep the opinions of "shock jock" Anthony Cumia to a minimum. Secondly, I was the one that added the entry about Cumia stating Ross was in the Vietnam war. He stated he met him in studio when he was very young to radio and that Ross stated he was in the Vietnam war, and then later Cumia saw an SNL bit in which Ross was a guest in a bit in which he was humorously depicted as a raving psychopath after being in the Vietnam war, as a sharp contrast to his tranquil attitude. Cumia didn't state it with the least bit of jest, but I assume a rabid OnA fan changed my entry to reflect the running "life partners" motif they have. Killridemedly 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "friend of Cumia?" 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: My brother told me that Bob was a murderer and that his shows were actually taped in prison and thats why he would always paint in a completely black set -Magikmm 08:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your brother is either pulling your leg, or is misinformed. Zerbey 17:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He painted in front of a completely black set to draw attention to himself and the canvas. Urban legends, yay! Buyable 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  prison 

message: This got taken off the page, but my cousin, Bobby, is his son. I'm very proud of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.142.105 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  his son 

message: Does anyone know what his religious beliefs were?  He often referenced God in his shows. 66.191.19.42 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Beliefs? 

message: Where was Bob born?  The article text says Daytona Beach, FL but the box on the right says Yonkers, NY.  There's no explanation of the Jordanian nationality, either.  -- Mincebert 12:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth 

message: I was wondering what Bob died of, hoping to get the answer here.  I'm surprised that it's not mentionned in the article.  Is it because nobody knows?  -- Lyverbe 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He died of lymphoma .  It was mentioned in the article at one point, but appears to have been removed. 66.191.17.168 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: The section detailing marriages and family should be private life. The article is full of words like loved, sadly etc that doesn't seem encyclopedic. I would be happy to do it if that's alright with other editors.--The Stars, Like Dust 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General cleanup needed 

message: There are rumors that Boss Ross was gay, are there any proof to these claims?
Tmursch 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the fact he was married three times and had a son proof enough that he wasn't? 68.118.72.97 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times did Elton John marry? 220.239.230.79 10:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's too nice to be straight. --146.151.41.37 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, unless a source can be found otherwise, it's best to assume he's straight.--70.238.3.109 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's counter-intuitive. If there's no information either way, why assume anything? Rozencrantz (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Twice, but the second time to a man.  2601:283:4300:7AE0:A8EB:C854:49B9:8D2F (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation 

message: Bob Ross had a segment on a Bill Nye the Science Guy episode about eyes, where he talks about what rods and cones do, and paints some rods and cones inside an outline of an eyeball.
(TomServo1 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Ross on Bill Nye 

message: Did Bob Ross have any religious affiliation?  He mentions God often while painting.  68.116.99.77 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think many people presumed he was a Christian of some style, but as to what denomination he was or how he did in terms of attending service and the like, no info has been found. To be so famous, he seemed to manage to keep quite a bit of his private life private. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a sourced reference to a denominational affiliation or belief system ever comes up, it might be of some interest. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've heard somewhere that he was Mormon, but I doubt it's true.F33bs (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If such information is available from a reliable source, that would be a great addition.  Some of his films hint at a form of Protestant Christianity, but it would really be nothing more than conjecture. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Affiliation? 

message: The TV Show section says "The public arguably knows Ross best as the host of the public television series The Joy of Painting" [emphasis mine].  
Even though there might not be any way to definitively prove this, or any source to cite to, is there any question that Bob is best know from his TV show?  I think this is a fact, and I don't think that the word "arguably" is appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocohen2 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it isn't sourced, right now its best to note that it isn't clear, but most likely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Bob is best known 

message: How are we going to reference Bob's quotes?
Should we just remove anything that is not sourced even though we all know it to be true?  
He always said "beat the devil out of it"
Can we insert some sound clips?  What are the copyright implications of that?Malachite36 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced Quotes 

message: I would like to start a discussion on the validity of some of the topics - namely, the video game and snowboard sections - that have been removed.  (see ).   In my opinion, these items should be included in the article because they illustrate cultural influence outside of the subject's element.  It is a noteworthy aspect of the subject's legacy.  ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural influence has been discussed and rejected, nor is either really noteworthy. As noted before, the game never happened, nor is a snowboard particularly noteworthy. There is TONS of Bob Ross stuff out there, and it is not Wikipedia's place to catalog them all. The game is also already more appropriately covered in the series article (or was last time I checked), as this is a biography. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a "Bob Ross in Popular Culture" section. user:AnmaFinotera asserts that this was discussed and rejected, but there is no evidence of that here. In any case, we will discuss it again (though as is plain from reading this section, no such discussion exists). Proxy User (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize this section was removed in October 2007, right? Go read the archive. The discussions are there. Nor did Arx Fortis say "lets bring back the whole list" he wanted to put in the snowboard stuff (added by a spammer) and the non-existent video game (covered more appropriately under Joy of Painting) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there is no evidence here on the talk page to support any kind of discussion that resulted in consensus to remove it. That one editor might feel the removal is correct is not the same as discussion resulting in consensus. Clearly there are several who would like to see the section returned. That the section was removed is irrelevant to the current discussion. Also, the discussion is abou Bob Ross in popular culture, not about Mr. Ross' television show. I nominate the section to be rebuilt. We will discuss it, and reach a consensus base on the current interest to have the section in the article. Thank you! Proxy User (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not irrelevant to the discussion. Its removal was done with consensus. That is relevant as you are attempting to claim it was just done without any real reason. Nor is interest alone any reason to put in unsourced trivia. People frequently want to put inappropriate content in articles. Just because there are three of them doesn't mean it happens. Wikipedia does have guidelines and policies, even if someone people don't like them. WP:V is a core one, as are WP:RS and WP:NOT. Please point to a single solitary reliable source that is about Bob Ross himself as a cultural icon apart from his television series. The onus is on those who want to include such information to prove it. Also, can you point me to a single FA level biography article that has such a section? Let's look at some other famous folks: Douglas Adams - none, Phil Collins - nope, Bob Dylan - nada, Michael Jackson - still nope. As a side note, the Biography project has been queried as to the appropriateness of such sections. As I feel some WP:CANVASSing has occurred, I have also asked an administrator to look into this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still in favor of a "in popular culture" or similar section, and I welcome an administrator opinion on the matter. Either there should be one here, for this individual, and if not, I have to ask why other individuals have such sections. Because many, many do, and it will call for widespread edits throughout the entire Wikipedia if judgment falls to the latter. --Gero (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and just because bad articles have them does not mean it should be repeated. Many ARE removed when articles undergo improvement efforts. Again, can you point to a high quality biography article that has such a section? And can you provide the necessary reliable sources for this proposed section (and no, just citing episodes does not count, as has been upheld very recently as being WP:OR).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS refers to bad content, not high quality content that fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Featured Articles are ones that one looks to for guidance and as examples of what an article should be. And sorry, but there is "soon we will reach consensus, so lets get started" yet. One canvassed remark agreeing with you is not consensus. Considering your convassing activities, outside opinions are fully required. Also, as noted, there is consensus not to have this content - not in the past but EXISTING consensus in that the section has remained gone for 15 months. This is straight from an administrator, so you must now establish REAL consensus, not canvassing to try to get your way, but actual discussion showing how your desired section will meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and will add to the quality of the article. Please find some other reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: An 'in popular culture' or 'trivia' section is not going to happen. The fact that Family Guy made fun of Ross is irrelevant to a Bob Ross biography, and does not increase an understanding of the subject. I agree with everything that AnmaFinotera has so far argued, and she has already cited all of the relevant policies and guidelines to support this argument, so I need not repeat them here. Disparaging other editors like this will most certainly not help your cause either. Sarilox (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AnmaFinotera and Sarilox here. While there might not have been direct article consensus to remove it, it was removed with Wikipedia-wide support - see Wikipedia:Trivia sections for more. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Influence 

message: Can someone please post hos Ross died? This article seems very incomplete without it.  --Schmendrick (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the very first line: lymphoma. - 83.171.169.213 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death? 

message: Not sure if its worthy of inclusion but in its better days, MTV had a bumper featuring Bob Ross. This is noted on IMDB. It was basically several seconds of Bob teaching at the easel and then, having painted an MTV logo with a scenic background, closing with something to the effect of "MTV: it's all happy little trees".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.220.6.139 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTV spot 

message: I added that tag because of the source. I was under the impression that Ross graduated from a high school in Orlando, not Pennsylvania. In addition, the reference listed links to a Facebook page, which in turn contains a complete copy/paste of the article, making it self-referential and utterly unverifiable. elektrikSHOOS 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tag 

message: If Ross had been a medical-records officer, would he have really been in a position where he had to yell at people or give them a bad time? It sounds odd, especially for someone who seemed congenitally laid-back. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency 

message: I have nothing against Bob Ross, but does this paragraph really match Wikipedia's standards on neutrality and objectivity?   
:Ross is often looked at as being the most influential artist of the 20th century. He has been cleverly called "the Michelangelo of our time" by his peers, and experts agree. Bob Ross was also a generous and caring man. He chose to help others by teaching instead of selfishly making a name for himself. This led him to rightfully being dubbed "the Mother Theresa of artists". It is overwhelmingly agreed throughout the art community that Bob Ross ranks among the greatest artists of all time and has left an impression on all people, one that will never fade.[12][13]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.25.98 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectivity 

message: The article says the show ran from 1983 to 1994.  But it also says that Bob Ross died at the conclusion of the 31st season.  Is 31st season an error?  Or is there some other explanation?  71.241.227.109 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering that. Did they do 2 seasons per year? --70.89.189.78 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The show ran 4 seasons per year, AFAIK, but you're right, it should be sourced. I'm going to dig through the Internet and see if I can find a source that supports this. Also, it says 31 seasons on The Joy of Painting, so you may also want to run it past the folks there to see if you can get help for this. elektrikSHOOS 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long did the show run? 

message: The article says the show ran from 1983 to 1994.  But it also says that Bob Ross died at the conclusion of the 31st season.  Is 31st season an error?  Or is there some other explanation?  71.241.227.109 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering that. Did they do 2 seasons per year? --70.89.189.78 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The show ran 4 seasons per year, AFAIK, but you're right, it should be sourced. I'm going to dig through the Internet and see if I can find a source that supports this. Also, it says 31 seasons on The Joy of Painting, so you may also want to run it past the folks there to see if you can get help for this. elektrikSHOOS 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long did the show run? 

message: In this case, the web pages cited are the "critical response". They are not references to the "critical response". 66.66.76.187 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sourcing is still unclear, regardless of what it's in regards to. There is only one source for the entire section, and it is to, like I said, a blog, which really isn't reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Especially in cases of criticism in biographies, it's best to err on the side of caution to maintain a neutral point of view and keep the article verifiable. I'd look over WP:CRITICISM if I were you to get an idea of what Wikipedia's stance on this is. elektrikSHOOS 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: In addition, the unsourced statements after your link is used violate Wikipedia's standards on original research as they are not substantiated by a reliable source. elektrikSHOOS 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These critics seems to just be average joes with no documented expertise of their own.  Their opinions are as valid as the next man's but that's the point:  Without being professional artists or art critics, why should we listen to them?  I think they're mostly right, but even so.  If Robert Hughes had made the same points as these two sources they'd be worth noting.  174.91.0.164 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response 

message: The last paragraph in the painting section doesn't quite appear to match the sources given. I took a look trying to verify the information and for my mind it takes quite a bit of reading between the lines to get "overly simplistic, without artistic merit, and monotonous" out of the sources mentioned. Perhaps I'm just missing something (and if I am please by all means point out what), but from what I saw the sources were criticizing his painting style as stolen/copied (the NY Times one) and inspiring dependence on Bob Ross and a lack of originality (the emptyeasel.com one). For this reason, I am tagging the paragraph with the  and  templates. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How many of the pages of the NYT cite did you read? There are 4 pages, only half of one page (the last, the one the cite opens at) notes the case of the technique (wet on wet) being borrowed from his mentor, another page and a half about his background and television show, and a page where "establishment" artists and critics talk about the lack of technical merit and artistic development in his work. The blog piece seems to reflect much of the NYT article, that adherents of the Bob Ross method are only capable of generic facsimiles of Bob Ross paintings and evidence no artistry. Perhaps the term monotonous is incorrect, but that is a question of better describing the criticism and not for removing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember whether or not I saw the first three pages; it is entirely possible that I missed them since the reference opens on the fourth page. Either way, it seems to match much closer to what I saw at first now that it has been corrected...the first sentence being reworded makes it to where I can see how that source supports it and I see no problems with the NY Times source now. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph in the painting section 

message: Also, I realize this may seem touchy, but I am certainly old enough to recall all this: Master Bill Alexander pioneered this technique, though lots of artists have used similar ways of painting.
It should be noted that Bob Ross basically stole Alexander's format, technique and TV presentation. Everything from the subject matter to the equipment - Ross even cleaned and dried his brushes exactly as Alexander had taught since BEFORE World War II. I made a sturdy screen bottom for a coffee can for brush cleaning - just as Alexander, not Ross, invented.
Alexander was on TV teaching this stuff, perhaps contemporaneously with Ross - but Ross, as I said, stole everything from Alexander. Yes, STOLE it. The only true difference is Bob Ross had a Plexiglas palette (which shape was specially designed by Alexander) - and he could never paint anywhere near as beautifully as Alexander did.
Can we discuss that instead of having stupid things about Ross in the Air Force?76.195.85.160 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policy for all article content is verifiability, not truth. If this were true, one would have to find a citation—specifically one which is acceptable by our guide for acceptable sources—to include it in the article. elektrikSHOOS 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, claims about the subject have no relevance on Wikipedia unless the are reliably sourced WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I think that's ok, although we should rework some of the language. So long as we make clear that this claim was made by Alexander, it's a good source. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I just read the Times article and as usual I think it has been mis-used as a reference here. See my new section below and then reconsider whether or not Ross stole the entire painting technique. It isn't that we should present Ross as a thief; just that you are leaving out a very hot issue and no one will take this article seriously without a mention of it. Alexander deserves this much at least.75.21.149.151 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I would point you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is the policy that states that all content we write must be able to be referenced to a good, third party, reliable source. If an independent reference can be found for these comments by Mr Ross regarding Mr Alexander then they may well be included. Unfortunately, a personal transcription or even a link to the episode itself does not have the appropriate degree of impartial but learned commentary that Wikipedia requires. Hopefully your search for a good source may yet bear fruit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately not - a copy of the transmission does not have the authoritive third party commentary that WP:V requires. We need to show where an independent party has noted Mr Ross' comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we allow citing a television episode as a source for what occurred in that episode? I know it comes up in fictional biographies more often but surely it works as a viable source for the fact that Bob said what he said. GRAPPLE X 23:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, if you continue editing Wikipedia (and why not?) then you are likely to pick up how things work. In due course, also, a reliable source for the comments made on this episode may also be found and then the information placed in the article. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is no issue in having to wait until the right reference turns up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for what it's worth (not much), I figure there may be people in here interested/curious about this gem. I offer this to those whom without hesitation say that Mr. Ross never mentioned Mr. Alexander on his show, and to emphasize that Mr. Ross (in his own words) believed he was "given a gift" rather than "stole a technique". I fully understand that this is NOT a good, third party, reliable source, and that this discussion is NOT a forum for sharing youtube video links. However, in a discussion section titled: "Ross stole from Bill Alexander", I believe that these words of Mr. Ross should be considered. Thank You. On youtube: "Bob Ross Dedicates His Show To Bill Alexander" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOiDGH80j3M 70.173.129.19 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hey, how about you check into histories here. You'll see someone tried creating a William Alexander page then it was pulled. No explanations, yet here is the huge and glorious Bob Ross page. The man was a thief.75.21.155.189 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross stole from Bill Alexander 

message: Everyone should read it, no, not read, feel it. Enjoy the "no true scotsman" using, condescending, arrogant and vitriol-vomiting "real artists" that hide Bob Ross's products to not "offend the regulars". It is a delicious amount of butt hurt "artists". Only the last few paragraphs are about the controversy, the rest is pure comedy so stereotypical that even the worst Hollywood script writer couldn't come up with it. 217.225.125.176 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed the section because talk page discussions should be focused on improving the article. If you have an actual objection I will remove the template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh man, practice what you preach! What have you contributed to this lately?!76.195.85.222 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for reading the NYT article 

message: From the Painting section: "Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, has claimed that he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."
This does not sound right. Alexander "claimed he taught" Ross? Ross himself acknowledged twice that Alexander taught him. Is this the final expression of that fact for the article?
I object to that sentence. It should state that Bill Alexander taught Ross the method. Ross acknowledged this, and thanked Alexander (on the air) for being his teacher. The rest of it mentioning Alexander's feelings of betrayal is OK as-is.
But I see that editing is out of the question. Who blocked the article from editing? Or am I missing something as usual? 76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not "blocked" in any way; it hasn't been protected since April May, and even then it could still be edited under the Pending Changes trial. (Here's the log.) However, Wikipedia's policy on all article content is verifiability, not truth. To make this edit you would need a source describing it. As of right now sources used support the information as stated in the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I will concede the point above; I wasn't aware of WP:CLAIM and I think KeithBob has rephrased the passage excellently. However, wanting you to verify information you put in the article isn't in any way whining. It's site policy. I apologize if this doesn't match with your vision for the page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shoos for a very measured response to a rather intense comment from IP76. WP has strong policies on civility. Without it we can't progress, so let's all keep our heads and work together to improve the article. Things may not always go the way we want them to but we have to concede to WP policy and group consensus.  Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion and helping to improve the article. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting section OBJECTION! 

message: To the "Painting" section I have added: "An interesting aspect of Ross' shows, however, were the moments during which Ross discussed his invention of materials and ideas that were clearly Alexander's inventions."
Can someone please assist me with the connexion of that statement to the NY Times ref.? I know it is corroborated there somewhere - I just don't know how to reference that point.
New objection: I do not think it is enough or verifiable to have the following in the same sec.: 'However, Ross never claimed to be the creator of the technique. In fact, in season 2, episode 1 of "The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross", he dedicates his show to William Alexander, explaining that "years ago, Bill taught me this fantastic [wet-on-wet] technique, and I feel as though he gave me a precious gift, and I'd like to share that gift with you [the viewer]".'
I mean, what, we are just supposed to either take the editor's word for it or go hunting for that episode? Apply the same rule here as you did with me. There is no reference and thus no actual verifiability for this remark by Ross except a mention of the show, and that just seems like a forced opinion and is certainly, as it stands now, in the realm of personal research. Or did one of you others get a recording of that episode and hear it for yourselves? If so, then make that a new reference. It would be cool to have that in there to balance out the sourness of the Alexander controversy.
Remember, you all here are the rule-conscious people! So follow the rules.75.21.159.173 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a well formed reference, but it is a reference. You know what you're looking for, so it is verifiable (which is the requirement) even if it is not yet verified. As for "An interesting aspect of Ross' shows, however, were the moments during which Ross discussed his invention of materials and ideas that were clearly Alexander's inventions", I don't recall that being in the NYT article. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: No, not at all. WP:V requires that information articles be verifiable. If an editor adds a statement that Ross said X, but without providing a source, that statement can be challenged and removed if a source is not provided. But if a source is provided, say Season 2 episode 1, for that assertion, that's a source and it can be verified. So far, I have not been able to verify it, but there's no rule that says that everyone has to be able to verify a source, just that it be verifiable. Think of books in libraries, I may have access to books that you do have have access to, so I can provide a source, and you may not be able to verify it, but presumably others can. The assertion in this case can be verified, it just requires getting a hold of the DVD or other recording. Now, if you have heard Ross claim these inventions as his own, and can provide a source, we can add that as well, and document that he said different things at different times.  I hope that's clear, let me know if it is not. Now we do also have to be careful, the DVD's or recordings of the show are self published sources for Ross, so we can use them to say that he said X, but not that X is true. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Well said. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  21:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I write this, KCTS is showing a documentary on Bob Ross. The episode moment in which he thanks Bill Alexander for teaching him wet-on-wet is shown. This documentary (which also shows Alexander "handing off the brush") is available on home video. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some help needed, and an additional objection 

message: I want to add to this about Ross thanking Alexander: it does not belong until we have an air date and not just his exact quote. That is a double standard with the rules here.
Secondly, about Ross taking credit for Alexander's inventions: I have the main Alexander site which is kept up by his heirs. It speaks of his inventions, his early years and his dreams.75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: an update: I apologize for not having consulted the references. I see the citation is there, for Ross' statement, and that is good enough.75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I don't think policy requires air dates, although they would be nice to have, I added what I could find about that episode to help others find a copy. In regard to the web sites about Alexander, they are fine for sourcing that Alexander or his heirs claims that he did X or Y, but nothing controversial. We have the NYT article that says he claimed to have invented wet on wet, so I'm not sure we need that site, but I have no objection really to including it, so long as we don't let the section get too big and violate undue. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: This is a public thanks to Nujinn for help and illumination in the matters I have raised. I agree with Nujinn's positions - they are good, worthy concretisms. The article will always need betterment until it can realy be bettered no more, and additional citations are probably out of the question by this point in time, so I suggest we leave it as-is, only removing uncited/unverifiable little extras.75.21.105.113 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fairness and a bit about Bill Alexander 

message: Is this a joke?
>At age 17, he was raped by a gang of flamboyant clowns who rode him like a pony over the horizon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.232.180 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clowns? 

message: With Bob Ross being celebrated by Google today, we need to lock this page.  How do we accomplish this? --12:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to lock this page today 

message: Since this page is locked for a couple days, need to download the image from google and attach it to the article. https://www.google.com/logos/2012/bob_ross12-hp.jpg --TRiPgod (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't add that doodle, as it is a copyrighted image and would fail our non-free content criteria on this page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Google doodle 

message: The introduction implies that PBS has stations in Canada.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.169.177 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no PBS in Canada 

message: In Popular Culture 
Bob Ross was parodied in "Fifteen Minutes of Shame", a Family Guy Episode, in which he threatens to cut viewers who dare tell anyone where he has painted a secret bush. 
Radish bliss (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "In popular culture" sections should only contain notable instances of the subject being mentioned and their significance on pop culture as a whole, and not simply be an exhaustive list. This does not add to it. In addition, you have not cited a reliable source that can be used to verify this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question: In that case, why was `The Boondocks` added as a notable instance? Family Guy is also, if not more so, popular than The Boondocks. We're talking about Bob Ross, so, I highly doubt this list will contain more than 5 items on it before it is exhausted. Your reasoning is not consistent with what has already been included. Swivelgames (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Sources: Wikia's Quotes Section (featuring Bob Ross' parody first) , YouTube Video featuring Bob Ross' parody , Ahsan Haque's Review (IGN) ("[who rated] the episode a 9.9/10, [and] called the episode an 'instant classic' and 'one of the funniest and most creatively constructed episodes of Family Guy'", and also noted the Bob Ross parody) , TV Rage's Summary (apparently TVRage is not a valid source) Swivelgames (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boondocks bit was removed as well, for the same reason. You're welcome to re-add both if you want as long as they're sourced, but I'd recommend you read this essay first. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the consistency. Swivelgames (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I did want to note, however (as I was not necessarily petitioning for the addition of the Family Guy reference previously, but more of a central argument for some consistency), the Family Guy reference does have some weight to it. For future reference or argument, the IPC essay says that in order for a pop-culture reference to be notable it has to pass at least one of the questions, preferably more. That being said, Family Guy's Bob Ross reference certainly passed Question 2, most notably with the IGN review but also the large amount of video uploads on to YouTube containing the reference. Question 1 would be impossible, as the subject passed in '95, and Question 3 is vague on what exactly a "real-world event" actually is. In particular, I wanted to point out that the article states that a pop-culture reference does not need to fulfill all of the outlined questions. They are not strict requirements, but simply "AND/ORs". Thanks for the evaluation, Elektrik. --Swivelgames (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: In addition, depending on how you would like to skew it, the massive amount of uploads that occur on YouTube because of the reference could possibly be noteworthy, as it is not simply the existence of the reference, but the notability and popularity of the reference that has spurred the uploads. I could think of other more popular references to other more popular people or items that indeed have incurred more popularity and uploads on YouTube, but given the popularity of Bob Ross, the amount of uploads containing the Family Guy reference is indeed notable. But again, this argument may be a stretch. Swivelgames (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The Boondock's reference may still not cut it, though, as the popularity of the reference is more important than the popularity of the show, video, or work. Boondock's and Family Guy's popularity are not necessarily an argument, but the popularity and response to Family Guy's reference could indeed be noteworthy, especially when relative to the number of Bob Ross references in pop culture and the popularity of all other pop-culture references to Bob Ross. Google's reference is, of course, undoubtedly popular. But Google's reference has, again, only fulfilled Question 2 of the notability requirements.Swivelgames (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 October 2012 

message: Perhaps there should be added a mention of Bob Ross having lately become an icon of ASMR (aka brain orgasm) via YouTube. 80.61.230.65 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASMR 

message: Reference 4 does not contain the quote 'vowing "never to scream again."'
This looks to have been inserted to prove an internet hoax that Bob Ross was an abusive Drill Sergeant.
"The correct reference is #5.  I'll change the annotation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 4 

message: I dunno, this article lacks so much detail on how Bob Ross went from a minor US Airforce Sargent and bartender to learning how to paint via a German TV show about painting and then BOOM he gets a gig with PBS and finds national fame?--173.60.51.236 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of detail  

message: I was fixing a factual error in the "Influence and legacy" section because it said that the marathon was to conmemorate what would have been his 73th birthday, I replaced it with "...to celebrate the official launch of Twitch Creative", altrough later I included both sentences. My edit was then reverted by Mlpearc with no summary, so I procedurally reverted back saying "No summary given and not blatant vandalism", and then it was reverted with the summary "Sounded better before the change, no one is mentioning vandalism". Per WP:DISPUTED, I think my edit should be kept. (Pinging Mlpearc) --TL22 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Twitch section is just an advertisement for Twitch. Glatisant (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please provide diff's to refresh my failing memory.  Mlpearc (open channel) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - I made this section when I first made my edit. However, right now the wording of the phrase looks a lot better now, so we can easily end this dispute. --TL22 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for your re-look. Cheers,  Mlpearc (open channel) 04:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Already . Thank you,  Mlpearc (open channel) 03:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitch marathon dispute 

message: In episode 12 of the first season of the TV comedy series The Boondocks, a Bob Ross-like character makes a prominent appearance in order to instruct Riley on a more effective way to channel his artistic talents. Being that The Boondocks is well known and popular, I move to include this detail in the "In popular culture" section of this article. The episode originally aired on 19 February 2006 on Cartoon Network. –– amanisdude (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be an addition to the page about how he has gained a cult following.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to make the addition if you have a reliable source saying that he does in fact have such a following. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Ross-inspired character in ''The Boondocks'' 

message: This article made the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report at number ten with 393,217 views for the week November 1 to 7, 2015. It was number seventeen the week before. Ross gained the attention of Twitch.tv which hosted a marathon of The Joy of Painting. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, glad to help a little bit. Bod (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This article made the Top 25 Report