Talk:Philip Johnson

message: * Why is there no mention of Philip Johnson's Nazi past?  See http://jewishworldreview.com/0205/applebaum_stigma.php3, for example.
MSTCrow 03:31, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
What about Poper Ratzinger's Nazi past?
Also, I think that given he left Germany in 1939, give him some credit for waking up from his stupor.131.96.70.164 07:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: If you see something missing in an article....add it. NickBurns 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um...

message: I wanted to include more than just a one-line mention of his cenotaph for the John F. Kennedy Memorial near Dealey Plaza in Dallas, but I can't find an appropriate place. I added it to the list of noted works, but wanted to add a bit more, such as the fact that he was invited personally by Stanley Marcus and that he waived his fee for the project. It doesn't fit under the heading "Later Buildings" because it isn't a building. I suppose we could change it to later works ... there also was a wonderful quote, haven't been able to pin down a year, regarding Marcus' effect on his career:
* "Phillip Johnson, was quoted as saying, 'I have been the beneficiary for some 40 years of people saying, "Stanley Marcus says you're a good architect." '" — from  a Sotheby's offering of items from Marcus' art collection
Anyone have ideas on how this material could be worked in appropriately?
Lawikitejana 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would be the best way to work this in? 

message: Hahaha! I bet some autistic deletionist purged the Lipstick Building ("non-notable!") from this page. No wonder no one bothers contributing anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.233.66 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Lipstick Building? 

message: There's no mention of this firm (other than in credits) nor are any other firms with which he was associated mentioned?
--TMH (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Johnson/Burgee? 

message: Since the disruptive editor (now reported) refuses to discuss his edits, I'll start the discussion without him. Obviously there are three editors who agree that stating Johnson was influential is acceptable for the lede. The editor in question, after fishing around (and some bad faith accusations) has settled on MOS:OPENPARA. However, that guideline merely states that the language should be neutral. However, it also states that it should indicate why the subject is notable. Johnson is an architect but beyond that he's an influential architect. Not every architect we find on Wikipedia is influential, just as not every writer is considered one of the greatest writers in the English language, yet the William Shakespeare article states exactly that, in the lede. WP:SUBJECTIVE, under WP:NPOV clearly states that while we cannot state that someone is the "greatest" or most influential, we can, and should,  "provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." We have those citations and stating why Johnson is notable is acceptable and encouraged. freshacconci talk to me 19:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip Johnson was an enormously influential architect and in particular among other things; glass house and Seagram's building aside; being a founding father of the architecture department at the Museum of Modern Art; influencing thousands of people over the years...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philip Johnson. 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/20100208181856/http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/glasshouse/ to https://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/glasshouse/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011112748/http://philipjohnsonglasshouse.org/history/bios/whitney/chapter1/ to http://philipjohnsonglasshouse.org/history/bios/whitney/chapter1/
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) 16:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tagging the section titled "Controversy over early political views." The title itself reads like an apologia, as does the section itself. I'll be working on it but meanwhile I think it needs to be tagged. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are serious violations of neutrality here, and the attacks on Johnson are way over the top. One editor now claims that he was an "unpaid spy for the Nazi regime." How could he be a spy if he  proclaimed  his political views to everyone?  The attacks on Johnson are declared to be "thoroughly documented,", citing a book by the author of another attack on Johnson. The linking Johnson with George Floyd is really beyond ridiculous. I'm not defending Johnson'views; Johnson himself  admitted that he was stupid and mistaken. But Wikipedia is not a place for diatribes like this. Please follow the neutrality rules. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The charge that Johnson "innovated white supremacy in architecture". during his time as a curator at the Museum of Modern Art is not supported here by any examples or evidence. Unless it's backed up with facts, it should be left out.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issue

message: :  Agreed.
:# The defense of Johnson Re: his role in MoMA is OR.
:# Referring to Noam Cohen as a "critic" paints his criticism in a skeptical light (he's a journalist - let's call him that).
:# Referring to the Johnson Study Group as "40 architects... calling themselves the Johnson Study Group" (emphasis mine) casts them as unprofessional.
: I've made an edit to address these, along with some style and readability issues, but it was reverted. I've discussed this with Modernist, and will proceed to restore the changes. François Robere (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, this is OR. The first ref is barely verifiable (no link, author or publication date), self-referential (points back to Wikipedia ), and makes no mention of the criticisms in the context of which it is cited; and the second doesn't even mention Johnson. François Robere (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

text: This doesn't resolve the problem of OR, so I made a few edits that do, starting with this one. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-arbitrary break 

message: The fourth paragraph of the lead needs to be revised to be more specific about by his involvement, since he was involved with two very different groups, followers of Huey Long and those of Father Coughlin. It also needs to state exactly what he did for those movements. It's too vague.  Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision needed of 4th paragraph of lead  

message: Boldface style is used in this article to emphasize the names of Johnson's buildings, which is against Wikipedia's MOS:BOLD and MOS:NOBOLD guidelines. However, I can see how the use of boldface for that purpose is helpful for the reader, so I let it be as a reasonable exception to the MOS guidelines. However, I removed boldface style from the image captions since  use of boldface was not so helpful. All but one (if I counted correctly) of the images are Johnson's buildings, so there is no good reason for boldface in the captions, and boldface was used irregularly in the captions anyway. So, I recommend sticking to the MOS guidelines of no boldface in the image captions. Biogeographist (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of boldface 

message: The IDS Center is one of the most striking examples of Johnson's work. The Crystal Court and the 51-story octagonal "shape shifting" façade are the Centerpiece of the city. I am stunned that there is no mention of it in this article. 2601:447:C802:7560:C42B:736D:3100:A075 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bold 2409:40E4:5F:1520:7D1E:4152:F9F2:5B8E (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID'S Center, Minneapolis, MN