Talk:Paul Conrad

message: *In at least two sources, (Multer-Wellin 2006, and Hawkins 1980) Conrad says he got his start as a cartoonist when an editor at the Daily Iowan asked him to join the paper.  This is true, and is confirmed by the editor himself (Charlie Carroll) in The Gazette 2010.  The problem is that Conrad says this meeting took place in Don Alberhasky's bar.  But in the documentary, he is seen outside and inside of Don's brother's bar.  Don owned the "Don's Central Tap" which no longer exists, while Bernie owned the Fox Head Tavern which is now doing business as "Dave's Fox Head Tavern". I'm guessing that Dave is David Alberhasky, Bernie's son, but I don't know for sure.  I also don't know why Conrad refers to Don here but based on the limited research I've done, it appears that Don's bar existed during the time frame Conrad describes, but they filmed in Dave's (previously Bernie's?) bar.  I'm going to avoid naming the exact bar for now in the article, however, I'm starting to think they were taking liberties and re-created this scene for the sake of reminiscing on camera for the documentary regardless of the actual location.  This is because in the documentary, Conrad says the bar was once twice the size.  The thing is, I don't think that was true for the bar they were in ("Dave's Fox Head Tavern" at 402 E Market St, Iowa City, IA ), and you can clearly see that it is impossible from the size of the original building.  On the other hand, it was probably true for  "Don's Central Tap" (now partly a book store at 203 N Linn St, Iowa City, IA), which reportedly took up "three floors of a quarter block building, with a fire marshal's capacity of over a thousand". Comparing the two locations on Google maps makes this clear.  So this is exactly what Conrad was describing, but since that bar no longer existed, he (and the director) appeared to be trying to recreate the scene in another bar.  Whether or not this is exactly what happened, I find it all a bit strange.  Why not just say the original bar no longer exists but it was twice the size of this bar, which by the way, is owned by the original bar's brother?  The whole thing has me confused, but I'm almost certain based on the evidence, that Conrad was describing  "Don's Central Tap" while being filmed in "Dave's Fox Head Tavern" simply because the former no longer exists. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues and errata 

message: #Extra adjectives in lead -- "conservative" for LAT is not an "obvious adjective" in the lead, and much of it is fluff about his wonderful talent etc.  Trim (my perennial advice) all adjectives and adverbs not essential to figuring out what the article says <g> 
#Consider reducing duplication - you have "an identical twin" in the immediate sentence before "twin brother" etc.  You could eliminate the first usage entirely and add "identical" before the second use of "twin" etc.   If an adjective is used twice in an article, it is likely the second use is not required <g>.  
#Reduce the use of anecdotes as being fun but not necessarily encyclopedic in value.  A few showing his transition from conservative Catholic to modern liberal would suffice.  
#Where a tv show is used - try to find a transcript for readers - videos are notorious as sources in articles, and for many readers basically are pretty unusable to show much (watching an hour show for two lines is a stretch). 
#His reputation as a sculptor may be worth a sentence at most - it is not a defining characteristic for hom AFAICT.
Readability is 50 which is quite good by Wikipedia standards (basically the median is about 50  though I think 55+ is reachable here).  Left to my "ruthless trimming" beliefs, I would likely cut it down in size by about a third <g>.   Main advice - cut the fluff to the bone.  I know a lot of older "good articles" are a tad florid, but you asked for my opinion and my edits on Joseph Widney show how much can be cut and actually give more real information to readers.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Collect.  Your criticism sounds reasonable.  I'll give this a look-see mañana. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Collect, I've added the wiki format to your numbers to allow for your preferred formatting. If this isn't OK, please revert. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Response: Collect, I agree with everything you've said up above except for your remarks about his sculptures.  While it may not be a "defining characteristic" of the height of his career as a cartoonist, it was a notable part of his later life as an artist, and it demonstrates his personal relationship with the church and his work on peace and social justice issues, his continuing commentary on US politics away from the editorial page, and his commitment to "giving back" to society through his fundraising efforts.   The documentary film about his life features his sculptures quite prominently in every major opening scene and the sources have more to say about this.  If I didn't make this notability clear, I will try to do so again.  I'm also open to moving the sculptures to another section. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Historically, Conrad was part of a major shift in focus from a conservative to a liberal approach for the newspaper, and this is emphasized over and over again in the sources about the history of the Los Angeles Times.  Conrad's presence at the paper was a radical shift in direction for the Times, and this was a deliberate tactical strategy by the publisher to compete with larger newspapers. So, it is important, historically, to note that Conrad's liberal presence at the conservative Times was notable, to the point where the governor of California complained about Conrad's liberalism on a daily basis to the publisher. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the NYT obit for my opinion on his later art ...  ranking it after him being a helium balloon enthusiast <g>.  The "bronze bust" of GWB is a hat and boots and nothing between -- and the NYT did not view it as a serious piece of art. Worth a sentence perhaps - but it was not a major part of his obit and I see no higher weight in other sources.  YMMV. Collect (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We have lots of serious sources on his work as a sculpturist, and even a documentary film. I generally don't write an entire article based on a NYT obit, as they are notoriously  error-prone.  For example, the widow of the late journalist Michael Hastings who died in a car crash last year is still talking about how the NYT obit made several unsupported and biased claims against him.  The last time I heard her bring this up was approximately one month ago, even though he died a year ago.  In fact, I've noticed an enormous number of complaints about NYT obits over the years, to the point where I don't take them very seriously.  However, I understand that you are trying to measure and gauge importance, but please understand that there are limitations, which is why it is important to take a wide sample. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The sources also indicate that Conrad felt quite strongly about his sculptures, meaning that they were incredibly important to him as an artist.  In addition to being shown at the  Los Angeles County Museum of Art, they also appeared at the Fullerton Museum Center (1993), the Guggenheim Gallery (Chapman College, 1990), the Brand Library Galleries (1985), and the Palos Verdes Art Gallery (1980).  According to Grady Miller of the Canyon News, Conrad "was specially proud of his bronze sculptures, which could be taken as a illustration of both his artistic range and his political beliefs." The Michigan Quarterly Review, among other publications archived in the finding aid provided by the Huntington Library, has featured his writing about sculpture and photographs of his work.  Their importance to understanding the artist and their importance to the artist cannot be underestimated. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not here to debate - you asked my opinions and I gave them, and did my due diligence on the topic by looking at the NYT which is not generally as deprecated on Wikipedia as you might wish.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: I want to remove or at least rewrite the first part Conrad was an imposing man with a booming voice as unsourced. I also wanted to change the word "matured" for "grew older" which isn't that big of a deal. Amother edit is showing serious signs of ownship as well as being paranoid. --Malerooster (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a citation be included here for review and then added to the article? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is properly cited to Rainey 2010 at the end of the paragraph. For the record, this is the third article you've followed me to, and the second during a GA review. That's not paranoia, it's a pattern. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, your concerns are valid.  I've made the following changes in response.Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation doesn't support the material exactly as written. The "booming voice" reference was a simile for how he entered a room. The article makes the subject sound more like a "loud mouth" maybe a little harsh. --Malerooster (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no simile in the original citation, so you must have misread it.  Can the prose be improved?  Possibly, I'll have a look later. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Viriditas, there are MULTIPLE uses of similes in the citation, NYT obit, I could pull a few if you like, and I am not even an English major. No big deal though. --Malerooster (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He had a loud, booming voice.  The sources are clear on this.  You can even see it in the documentary film and in the multiple interviews he did. The same source says, "The cartoonist, loud and often profane in person..." The loudness might be due to hearing loss from his WWII experience, but that's just speculation on my part.  Your claim that these are similes is entirely unsupported.  Again: "The courtroom victory only enhanced the image within The Times of Conrad as a towering, practically invulnerable figure. Even his physical presence seemed to confirm that view. Conrad stood 6 feet 2, his large head framed by thick, black-rimmed glasses and his arrival announced in a booming voice...The cartoonist, loud and often profane in person, viewed himself as a champion of the common man and relished combat with those he saw as protectors of the rich and privileged."  I have restored the content you removed. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Hi Collect, thank you for your suggestion and measured response. --Malerooster (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life section 

message: Can this material be covered in one section? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no relationship between discussing a work and having a list. Per MOS:WORKS: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists".  I have no idea why you removed this section so I have restored it. It's no different than discussing an album and listing that album in an article about a musician or discussing a book and listing that book in an article about a writer, etc. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You seriously need to check your ownership issues and not just blindly revert my changes. Geesh doesn't even to start to describe your behavior here. And you talk about others growing up? Seriously? --Malerooster (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how your reply addresses this discussion.  Again, you've been asked to stop following me from article to article.  My behavior is not under discussion here.  You've disrupted this GA review by attempting to destabilize it, in the process making a series of poor edits while attempting to inject subtle POV.  You've been politely asked to leave and go somewhere else.  Why are you still here? Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I've delt with your type before. I won't be bullied by you. Your behavior is under discussion now. Grow up or leave the project. Period. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is, the evidence here shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Your first edit to the talk page was to make accusations and attacks.  And here, I was discussing the MOS and you responded with another personal attack.  Your bad behavior began after I was participating in a peaceful review with another nominator.  Out of the blue, you showed up and started destabilizing the article with deletions and reverts based on your faulty reading comprehension.  And this is the third article where you've done this.  The evidence clearly shows that you are the one doing the bullying and interfering with constructive peaceful editorial work.  Based on this evidence, you need to leave immediately, and you've been asked to leave several times.  Please leave. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked by whom? You? --Malerooster (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article Paul Conrad.  If you would like to talk about editorial behavior instead, you are welcome to visit WP:ANI, where you will find your behavior under discussion in the newest thread at the bottom of the page.  Any further off-topic comments about editors here will be automatically archived. Thank you for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your'e welcome. --Malerooster (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sculptures section 

message: The "controversies" section is not too adequate as it now stands.  First of all, it omits the basic fact that while Paul Conrad was overall somewhat liberal, he was also anti-abortion, which was probably what generated most of the controversies.  Also, during the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war, he went a little nuts and started drawing things such as a star of David morphing into a Nazi swastika, or Jesus crucified on a star of David.  I have no idea if that's what's referred to very obliquely under the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (which was actually the Arab-Israeli conflict at that point); if there were specific flashpoint cartoons, it would be much better to mention them specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The section (and article) doesn't omit anything, and everything is discussed in its proper context.  He was not "somewhat" liberal, he was very liberal.  The sources do not support your contention that most of the controversies were generated from his anti-abortion stance, and the fact is, he became pro-choice later in life.  I agree with you that the article should mention "specific flashpoint cartoons", however, I refrained from doing that because there are so many and because there are so many different interpretations.  In at least one example, I was able to split out a subtopic (Chain Reaction (sculpture)) and talk about some of his early nuclear-related cartoons, only because reliable secondary sources discussed them. The IP conflict he illustrated is very complicated, and the loudest voices against his work came from letters to the editor in the Los Angeles Times (we can't write content based on letters to the editor) and from conservative members of the Jewish community who wrote self-published polemics about Conrad and who waged a campaign against his peace sculpture in Beverly Hills.  When I examined this literature in depth, I wasn't able to find anything substantial to add.  Highlighting several of the IP cartoons while ignoring the hundreds of others felt like undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, the term "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is rather anachronistic when referring to any period before the mid-1980s (and Hezbollah are still not Palestinian today), so I don't really know why you harp on that term by repeating it multiple times.  Second, the largest number of controversies (though maybe not the most intense ones) were probably due to his abortion position, so it seems strange that this is not mentioned in the controversies section.  Third, I know nothing and care nothing about any of his sculptures, but what I do know very well is that in 1982 a significant proportion of Jewish readers of the LA Times (and not only the "conservative" ones) were disgruntled by what a reasonable person could justifiably perceive as Conrad launching vicious attacks on a symbol of their religion. AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're implying that his cartoons did not focus on the IP conflict, which the sources assert, but I'm happy to look at it again.  For some reason you are obsessing on an alleged issue he criticized between Israel and Lebanon.  I'm not sure why you are continuing to claim that the largest controversies had to do with his abortion position.  I see zero evidence that is true. Finally, you seem to have confused an attack on a religion with an editorial commentary on the Jewish state of Israel.  Criticism of the governmental policies of Israel is not antisemitism. I should also point out that Conrad's cartoons that are critical of Israel represent a very small part of his work.  This intense focus on it is highly undue.  Through the years, Conrad criticized everyone and everything. It was, after all, his job. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- it really doesn't matter what percentage of his cartoons focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict as far as the "controversies" section is concerned.  If some of the most intense controversies were about the Arab-Israeli conflict, then that's one of the things that the "controversies" section should cover (just as we have long and detailed Wikipedia articles about airline flights that crash, but not on flights that arrive at their intended destinations uneventfully).  And your generic pre-canned boilerplate standardized "criticism of Israel is not antisemitism" mantra has no real relevance to a cartoon showing Jesus being crucified on a Star of David as a response to the 1982 Lebanon war.  In that case Conrad was the one who chose to drag in religious symbolism which was heavy-handed at an absolute minimum (heavy-handed religious symbolism which seems to be incoherent and distractingly irrelevant, unless intended to have rather nasty implications, as far as I can tell...).  I'm sorry, but I just don't think this article deserves to be rated "good" with respect to the controversies section (or otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to comment on this page at all). -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: AnonMoos, the particular source and controversy referred to in this article concerns Conrad's cartoons beginning in 1987, during the First Intifada.  This of course refers to the IP conflict and is not an anachronism as you suggest.  You have referred me to an earlier controversy that you personally recall having to do with the 1982 Lebanon War, however, I do not have good sources about such a controversy.  Therefore, I can only cover and write where the sources take me.  I believe the current statement in the article ("members of the Jewish community of Los Angeles took issue with Conrad's portrayal of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict") is accurate.  Considering that Conrad authored tens of thousands of cartoons, it would be undue for me to go into it in any more detail than that, however, I do like your suggestion up above that we should focus on "specific flashpoint cartoons", and in that regard, I can see the possibility of expansion with due weight.  In other words, this would involve a more expanded discussion of his most controversial cartoons using our most neutral sources.  In that respect, I think I was quite charitable to use Bentsur 2001 as a source for the controversy with the Jewish community, as it allows the reader to find out more about the subject. Beyond that, however, there isn't very much more to go on in this respect, and I believe I gave it the due weight it required.  Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If your sources mainly cover the post-1985 period, while my memories are of the preceding decade, then that could certainly explain a few things. I'm not indiscriminately anti-Conrad, considering that my favorite editorial cartoon of all time is by Conrad, but I still don't think that the "controversies" section is really adequate.  I'm having trouble finding directly relevant sources through general Google searching (though http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/05/local/la-me-paul-conrad-20100905/4 is somewhat relevant) and am not ready to hit the microfilms yet (which might be "original research" anyway).  What would really be useful is an archive of Jewish community publications in the LA area in the early 1980s, but if such a thing exists, it's almost certainly not accessible from where I am... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

text: P.S. The biggest single "flashpoint" cartoon I turned up in Google searching is probably the April 4th 1982 cartoon, captioned "Palestinian homeland" showing huddled masses confined in Star-of-David-shaped fencing (though I would consider that fairly tame compared to some others I remember).  AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm working on the Chain Reaction (sculpture) article, and I hope to nominate it to GA status within the next month (but it needs quite a bit of work before then).  FWIW, there is relevant information about Conrad's proposal to install the sculpture in Beverly Hills and the response from the Jewish community.  If you're interested, there are a few sources out there about this, but I believe the best ones are either behind paywalls or offline.  I ran into a Beverly Hills publication a while back (I've got the name archived in Zotero somewhere, it might be the Beverly Hills Courier, I'm not sure) whose archives did not go back that far.  However, if you are in the Los Angeles area, you may be able to get a hold of an archival copy. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I don't know anything about the sculptures and can't say anything about them.  What I do have clear memories of is some of the 1982 cartoons, but I'm not in the L.A. area, so am not in a likely position to access paper archives of some of the more specialized publications of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: .  No worries.  Since you have expressed interest, I thought it only fair to keep you updated as to my progress.  I'm still open to adding more about his cartoons on this page. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

text: We can only write about what the sources tell us.  Your memories are one thing, but the sources are quite another.  If you have a specific source I can use, please provide it.  From memory, there was a small blurb about the cartoon you describe in a Conrad-related source I found in the library a while back, but it didn’t seem like enough to write about. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies section

message: The controversies section is unfortunately still misleading and totally inadequate as far as Jewish issues go.  As far as I've been able to remember and discover/confirm through Google searching, the most intense controversies were actually connected with the Lebanon war of 1982, which falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict (not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).  Also, it would be much better if an actual cartoon which created controversy could be specifically described... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only write about what the sources tell us.  Your memories are one thing, but the sources are quite another.  If you have a specific source I can use, please provide it.  From memory, there was a small blurb about the cartoon you describe in a Conrad-related source I found in the library a while back, but it didn’t seem like enough to write about. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paul Conrad. 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/20140819082434/http://www.canyon-news.com/artman2/publish/LifeStyleMillerTimes/Paul_Conrad_A_Bitter_Appreciation_printer.php to http://www.canyon-news.com/artman2/publish/LifeStyleMillerTimes/Paul_Conrad_A_Bitter_Appreciation_printer.php
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) 06:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted recent changes to the lead as they failed to improve the text and instead introduced several new problems. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes