Talk:Mirth & Girth

message: Where is the painting now? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Current location of the image

message: Where can I find this? —Rob (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[New Art Examiner]] from July 1988 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: :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): 
#:: 
#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: 
#:: </div>
* 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I will wait for RFC and then decide.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  GAN 

message: 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)
replies: text: Representational? Representative? --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I'm looking for a word 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Mirth & Girth and [[Chicago Tonight]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appellate court hearing of Nelson v. Streeter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Black & White 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified