Talk:Greg Land

message: It seems as though many Wikipedia articles about comic characters (particularly female characters) use art by Land as the lead picture.  Now I know his drawings are sexier than many, but it seems that other artists have drawn more definitive versions of characters, and that those images should be used over Land's.  For an example, see the article about Phoenix.  I would think a John Byrne image would be more appropriate than Land's drawing.  99.153.132.205 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure how to address this

message: Have there been any legal consequences for Land due to his..."borrowing" of characters/frames?  If so, I think it would be appropriate to add some information to the Controversy section.75.69.110.227 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Consequences?

message: Prove the allegations against Land, or I will remove the reference. Dyslexic agnostic 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this isn't really a link that will be useful for the article itself but it shows where the allegations come from: side by side comparison. LauraOrganaSolo 12:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were references for the allegations, but the references section was broken. It's fixed now, I think the references are strong enough to allow the allegations to remain in the article. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo-referencing

message: While the "Controversy" section is fascinating, it sites no legitimate sources and amounts to an editorial smear campaign.  I'm sure the issue can be more properly addressed by stating that "Many have noted..." or "Some sources show..." with a brief (read: two-sentence) summary of the allegations and external links to the "proof" supporting the issue.  I suggest deleting the entire second paragraph (as it contains unnecessary detail with no included evidence), leaving the footnotes as external links to demonstrate the "Controversy".  Alternatively, the author needs to cite reliable authority for every accusation.  Kingphinger 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy"? 

message: Hope I'm doing this right~ hawhaw, wikipedia.  If anyone needs some actual printed evidence of Greg's photocopying and tracing of photos, try pages 46-48 of People and Poses by Buddy Scalera.  It's a demonstation by Greg Land on how to draw a beautiful woman.  Here's part of a paragraph next to the original photo and his traced photocopy, "Make a quick photocopy, enlarging the image to the size you want for your final art.  Using a marker, 'find' your character's outline."  Yeah, someone else can find and add it if they think it's relevant enough.  --Bastet (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People and Poses 

message: It doesn't matter if you HAET Greg Land personally, the sourced "Controversy" section is enough in itself. You do not need to add snide little remarks or re-write the art sources to be a droll "Original" art by Greg Land. Apart from looking dumb, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 
Also, No Original Research. If something can't be sourced from a verifiable outside source, don't add it. Amphis (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep this page NPOV 

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: I've nearly outright removed the controvery section.  Blogspot fails WP:RS about as hard as it comes by.  Find better sourcing. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding, right? This stuff is referenced everywhere with visual proof. What more substantial proof do you need? I'm reinstating it with tweak to make it more NPOV. Consensus has been in favor of this for ages now. Fetternity (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Comics don't have the body of academic work associated with other literary or artistic forms, and news and information about the field is distributed primarily in online periodicals like Comic Book Resources. Greg Land is treated as a notorious figure by such periodicals due to the similarity of his work to photographs for which he does not hold the copyright. The link to blogspot was actually to a static page where Jim Smash had collected a number of images for comparison, which for copyright reasons were removed from wikipedia. What you have done, in essence, is removed the possibility for the information to be included in the article, as no scholarly journals or 'serious' resources exist to argue the relative aesthetics or morality of referencing copyrighted material in the comics medium. Removing the section and leaving behind a link to a press release about a different subject does not improve the article, and limits the potential accuracy of the page as a reference about the artist. Furthermore, you can see from the page's history that the Greg Land article is a regular and frequent target of vandalism due to Land's notoriety, and retaining a section referring to that notoriety has helped reduce the amount of vandalism over the last year. Jack Fool (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  “Who are you going to believe... me or your own eyes?” -- Groucho Marx. Austinmayor (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or should I say "NOR your own eyes?" Austinmayor (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: As has been mentioned, comics do not have many viable print publications devoted to the medium, and this sort of news is beneath the notice of the mainstream press. In fact, it is unlikely that Mr. Land has been mentioned at all in a mainstream publication. I would submit that this is grounds for complete removal of this article. Certainly what would be preferable to this sanitized piece of pablum which fails to mention any of the substantial issues that the topic brings to mind. 
Until and unless the matter receives coverage in main stream media or other primary sources does not meet our guideline for inclusion. I am semi protecting the page as this information seems to be being repeatedly by various IPs. If there are some reliable sources then please use the time the article is protected to provide them here and come to consensus on a section rather than engaging in an edit war.
I love this statement. Are you aware why this information is repeatedly being posted by various IPs? It's because a consensus opinion has been reached. You just refuse to accept it. Oh, and speaking of the "rules."
Wikipedia content (including articles, categories, templates, and others) is collaboratively edited. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled they think they are (and may actually be) has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.
You've set yourself up as the absolute arbiter of what belongs in this article and what does not. And you are 100-percent wrong. I'm not some Wikipedia guru, but I am a magazine editor. If a writer brought me this story I would have zero problems running it in my publication. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Mr. Land is a serial plagiarist -- a mortal sin in the world of publishing.
I've enjoyed reading this as an example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia: pedantic sniping from a tin-pot dictator who is more concerned with semantics than with accuracy. The fact (and it is a fact) that Greg Land traces or steals art from photographs and other artists is incontrovertible. There is photographic proof simply everywhere -- from many, many divergent sources. Denying that Land traces is tantamount to denying that Denzel Washington is black because you can't find an article from a medical journal confirming the fact.
Removing all mention of the controversy is an even more egregious and asinine whitewashing of established facts.76.105.26.49 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion 

message: Since links to Blogspot sites are naughty, there is no way to incorporate this site's  extensive documentation and examples of Land's swipes into the main wiki article.  Nevertheless, I think that it is comprehensive and significant enough to include it in this discussion page. Austinmayor (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Who are you going to believe -- me, or your own eyes?'' - Groucho Marx 

message: And yes, before you pipe up, it is biased. I could sit here, pedantically itemizing for you just how it is, but then I'd be stooping to your level, wouldn't I? 
I wouldn't feel compelled to passive-aggressively remonstrate you like this if you didn't see Wikipedia as an outlet for such frivolous pabulum--which, incidentally, is what you accuse this article of being. 
In any case, I've come across hearsay that Greg Land has an 'art degree'. Not to be derogatory in putting that phrase in single quotation marks, of course--I did so in order to denote verbatim quotation. Anyhow, in the spirit of fairness and balance, it would seem only natural that we should verify this scuttlebutt, and then include all salient information related to it in the article itself--things such as the college he obtained it from, of what caliber and delineation it belongs to, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. After all, it seems that it's our modus operandi to do so with other biographical articles.  Ghost Lourde (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia isn't a venue for biased opining, no matter how eloquently delivered 

message: I locked the page after several editors turned the lead paragraph into direct accusations of plagiarism.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Page lock