Talk:V-J Day in Times Square

message: There's an article on Edith Shain that asserts very little notability other than that of the woman claimed to be the girl in this photo. Other stuff about her is minor and unsourced and even if true clearly related to or a result of this photo. I see no reason to retain a separate article about her, and suggest that anything worthwhile and sourced should be moved into this article. -- Hoary 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a totally subsidiary topic lacking independent notability.  FWIW, I don't even think she's the leading "candidate".--Pharos 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely.  Especially since it's in doubt whether she's even the real nurse.  How do we get these merged?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.3.206 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be bold and redirect her article to this one. She is completely non notable outside of the picture and the one source given is another wiki, which really has no reliability as a source. GrahameS 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Edith Shain]]

message: :Image:Am-ny-kiss.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused.  The fair-use statement with the picture basically says that because it is a low-resolution picture, it is OK to use it here; besides, how can you talk about a picture without showing it?  I am neither a lawyer nor a visual-image specialist, so I can't authoritatively address the first point, though the resolution isn't >that< low.  As to the second point, while a picture might be worth a thousand words, it is not necessary (though it certainly helps) to have a picture that is being discussed.
My second point is that it seems strange that we have a copy of a copyrighted photograph but not one of the other  photograph - which is discussed! - even though the latter is in the public domain! 211.225.33.104 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Am-ny-kiss.jpg

message: Here is a photo of a recent reunion between Edith Shain and George Mendonça.   http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2008-06/39957540.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.4.134 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Reunion 

message: This section needs to be revised for NPOV (or at least cite the "widely panned" and similar comments), and we should take a look at the sources to replace the links to blogs if at all possible. Jminthorne (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I renamed this section "Copyright controversy" for editorial reasons; it gives the reader a much better idea what to expect. I realize there is an edit war going on over this section; I'll speak to that below. Jminthorne (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imitations and Controversy 

message: Here's what the article now says:
==Related imitations and controversies==
In 2005 Seward Johnson used a computer to design a life-scale bronze statue that he titled Unconditional Surrender. A spokesperson has stated that it is based on the Jorgensen photograph titled Kissing the War GoodbyeRobert L. Pincus, "Port surrenders in the battle against kitsch", San Diego Union-Tribune, March 11, 2007. but a spokesperson for Life has called it a copyright infringement of the photograph by Eisenstaedt. This statue and several large versions in styrofoam and aluminum have been exhibited around the United States. Table-top versions manufactured by others quickly followed and are offered on the Internet. All of the statues show the lower legs of the subjects as represented only in the Eisenstaedt photograph.
Questions:
#What is the source for the assertion that All of the statues show the lower legs of the subjects as represented only in the Eisenstaedt photograph, or is it some combination of OR and OS?
#What is the source for the assertion that Table-top versions manufactured by others quickly followed and are offered on the Internet?
#What are the "controversies" (plural)?
#The only solid source adduced so far for this controversy has been a single article in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Why should a WP article on one or more much better known photographs devote much space to this controversy?
#Does this section deal with any imitation or controversy that's independent of Johnson?
#Insult to Injury, the Chapman Brothers' reworking of Goya's Los desastres de la guerra (which lacks an article), doesn't get a mention within the brief discussion of that series at Francisco Goya but is discussed at Jake and Dinos Chapman. This article purports to be about one or more photographs. Johnson has his own article ("John Seward Johnson II"). Which is the better place to describe Johnson's derivatives, this article or John Seward Johnson II? If the former, why?
#Currently more detail is provided at John Seward Johnson II than here. Would this be instantly obvious to somebody who read this article and has not yet read that one? If not, and if providing more information there is proper, is it not helpful to point the reader to a fuller discussion there?
-- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: not be able to reply to all of these questions today -- but will -- hope to do it tomorrow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Just a general suggestion, let's try to keep cool heads. Constant reverts are not going to help the reader. If we feel like we can't reach consensus on this issue on our own, why don't we request an opinion from an uninvolved party before anyone gets too frustrated? As for the article, In my opinion neither Johnson's page or this page is the ideal place for an extended discussion of his sculptures based on this image. If you feel an extended discussion of the statue and copyright claim are appropriate from an encyclopedic perspective I suggest you start a new article titled something close to "Unconditional Surrender copyright controversy." We could link to it from the "copyright controversy" section with a main tag. Jminthorne (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with the article title you suggested; it is a better title than the one I suggested. I hope no one it insulted by my concern that tempers were about to flare; an ounce of prevention and all that, right? Jminthorne (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 83d40m, I sense that you are disgusted by the works of Johnson or the promotion of these. You're fully entitled to your disgust. However, you don't provide citations to back up what you're saying; and even if you could provide them, this talk page would not be the place. If you want to write about Johnson, then do so in the article about Johnson. But do so meticulously, and bearing in mind not only Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply to all articles, but also those that additionally apply to articles about living people. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: J and Hoary, no offense taken - I responded as I did to try to stress that I did not feel hot-headed here, but strongly feel differently about some of the cuts. That needs to be hashed out when that occurs. I try to keep my personal feelings about this artist out of the article -- it is not appropriate there. I have used the opinions of others to document what I see as the reality here. He is widely panned in professional and art criticism venues, I will get a good source for that. I would not be a good author for expanding his article because I would find it difficult to find authoritative sources in the fine art field to create a balance. Aside from the foundations and venues he had created himself, it is difficult to find a serious positive review of his work. The only one who comes to mind is the director of the D.C. museum who made apologies in advance for the exhibit, put on for monetary advantages from a large draw. His statement was, essentially, that everyone loved to hate Johnson's work, but that after a close examination of the subject of the exhibit he could find a tangential excuse for presenting it. The museum practically lost its professional credentials in fine art circles afterward because of their action. I made edits to his article because I just could not leave the canned pr from his staff as our article, so I tackled it. I do want to see the article on V-J Day in Times Square developed fully and fairly. I will work with you to achieve that. My time is limited right now, will try to get the contact strip up-loaded and posted to the article. Unfortunately, the detail will be poor since it will have to be quite small for me to make a horizontal image of it. Will begin an article about the copyright issue as well. Takes a lot of time as you know. ----83d40m (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your patience on this 83d40m. As I am sure you are aware there is reason to be extra cautious since the discussion includes both potentially contentious information about a living person and coverage of an ongoing civil dispute. Jminthorne (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course -- we all have the same objective and having the participation of other good editors always is helpful. I am confident that we will achieve consensus on details presented on this topic. ----83d40m (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually I think making the observation that the legs aren't visible in Jorgenson's work is ok from an OS perspective; it would be the conclusion that this is a problem for the origin claim that would violate OS. Jminthorne (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jninthorne and will make the edit if agreed to. ----  83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was able to make that insertion first, see if it is agreeable to all ..............65.196.169.194 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of it. It is just one controvery. Your source does not use the "and a derivative" language so it's wrong to attribute it to Pincus (it would be better if we had the primary source of Time making the copyright claim). I took the last two sentences back out because they were unsourced, editorially undesirable (irrelevant to an article about the photograph), and still violated OS the way they were phrased. Jminthorne (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: FYI, the applicable policy is WP:SYN, not WP:OS. Jminthorne (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: J, do you want me to attempt to put this into an acceptable edit? Best to wait for sources likely being presented at the public hearing that will occur later in the month, however, I would leave it until after that occurs. ----83d40m (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A hearing could definitely create some good sources for the topic. Since the copyright complaint is tangential to the photo itself, I really would like to keep its coverage on this page very high level. I do apologize for the sequence of endorsement/revert; I didn't mean to be misleading. Saying "the nurse's feet are not visible in Jorgenson's photograph" is patently obvious and doesn't (in my opinion) need a citation or violate WP:SYN, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good addition to this article. Jminthorne (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I understand your principle. Persuasion is my inclination, not war. A few reversals may be required to achieve that however. I prefer to be thorough and realize that many readers skim articles and therefore, may have missed previous discussion. So, often I reiterate or stress significant details. It also creates a concise statement in a single section of the article that can be used accurately as a reference. In this instance, the odd position of her feet could not have been deduced from the Jorgenson photograph, making the appearance of that posture in the statues the best evidence of the use of the Eisenstaedt photograph as the model. Without that pivotal detail, the distinct association with V-J Day would fail -- and the assertion of copyright infringement would be difficult to support. Her off-balance, unnatural, and awkward posture is the distinctive aspect of the image. It is the characteristic that makes it so different from a photograph of a sailor kissing a woman in a natural posture, which could never convey the iconic association. The Johnson statues betray their source quite clearly and so do the table-top replicas that followed. This is why I feel that it should be a part of the copyright controversy portion of the article. Further consideration may change your inclination. Please let me know if it does and I will add it -- I am not going to pursue that without your concurrence.  ---- 83d40m (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest waiting until the complaint develops a little more (particularly if it generates some additional sources), then starting a new article on the controversy and balancing the content of the new article with the teaser on this page. Jminthorne (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, one of the characteristics of kitsch is its popular appeal. Its worst distortions must be tormenting to those associated with original creations so copied.  ----  83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Many other sources exist, but suggest waiting for the dust to settle on the one in Sarasota before choosing the best to quote. The battle still rages, but once the public input to the municipal government is concluded in September, there will be ready access to assessments, documents, and such -- in public domain -- as well as the judgment of the elected officials to resolve the controversy there. It seems to be close to a final resolution. In an unlikely outcome -- if the statue is placed there -- although the controversy then, likely, would continue, hopefully there would be factual discussions in the press rather than so much fanning of the flames and the resulting posturing. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But here's a simpler option. Until there's more than a trivial amount of news coverage, skip the whole business. After all, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you suggest, and as I mentioned above, delay is going to have to be the solution, because the public hearing will provide acceptable references. There is a plethora rather than a trivial amount of coverage, but apparently the major local newspaper is neither entertaining nor seeking facts through investigative reporting, leaving the issue to be hashed out endlessly by guest columnists, letter writers, and forums. There is no competition with another daily newspaper for motivation. An Internet site and the local nonprofit radio station have been providing more professional reporting than the Sarasota Herald Tribune. With these sources cited as inadequate, sifting through all of the items mentioned -- to pursue sources for well-founded statements -- is dreadfully time-consuming. ---- 83d40m (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: in Rogers v. Koons -- a good article on that from the perspective of artists is Design Observer, dated 01.21.08, you may have to make a search for Koons on that page and if so, the name of the case is perhaps the second result. It contains a lengthy discussion of the case. Many links below that in discussion, provide other cases. ---- 83d40m (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Suggest waiting as discussed above for more acceptable sources. The press seems to be milking the controversy at the moment. Given the patriotism spin placed by the proponents, there seems to be reluctance for the press to make any inquires of their own... no dispassionate coverage has taken a serious look at the issues, save the news program already linked to the article (Local Matters), which you refer to as a chat, but which is a real hour-long debate including facts and opinions. There is plenty of misinformation being poured on, lots of letters to the editor, guest editorials, blogs upon blogs, e-mail campaigns, bogus "petitions" assembled on the Internet with many duplications (including the petition collectors!) and no verification of residency, and (can you believe it) personal attack dogs set upon some of the players. Waiting for the end of play should yield more useful press coverage. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I would opt for inclusion, if it is related to the photographs it is relevant for discussion at the article on the photograph. We have quoted him and his creative relationship to the photograph is fundamental, a threat to that is a copyright infringement launched since his death -- so he is not the one making this assertion.  It has moved on to the current holder. The presence of these issues reinforces the cultural importance of the photograph -- as an icon that rallies polarization between exploitation and protection. It certainly qualifies for inclusion here as well as in an article on the copyright issues. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and it is the likely fate of that section.  ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes -- it is debatable, and I expect we have a way to go... by the time we reach consensus, by definition, we all will be satisfied with the result. Hashing it out is essential.  I will have to defer further work on this until later in the weekend.  ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Related imitations and controversies"

message: Questions:
#What is the source for the assertion that All of the statues show the lower legs of the subjects as represented only in the Eisenstaedt photograph, or is it some combination of OR and OS? 
The photograph by Eisenstaedt and the one by Jorgenson are displayed in the article clearly the Jorgenson photograph differs in that all of the legs are not shown. Pointing that out as a significant problem with a claim that it is the source of images that do display the legs in exactly the positions in the Eisenstaedt photograph is a typical component of articles. 
#What is the source for the assertion that Table-top versions manufactured by others quickly followed and are offered on the Internet? 
That source has been removed recently, perhaps by you, I do not want to take the time to comb through the entries to determine whether all of the cuts from the article are all yours, but it seems peculiar that you would cut things and lose all memory of the portions cut. Commercial links are discouraged, but I found these quite quickly    a site using it as an example of a category and 
 with the  price and details of their offering and believe that readers can find these readily as well. 
#What are the "controversies" (plural)?
 shows some of them and it looks as if you removed this information as well. 
#The only solid source adduced so far for this controversy has been a single article in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Other sources were removed, again it looks as if by you. There are many newspaper articles and guest editorials. . Suggest a call for more or better references or placing them.
Why should a WP article on one or more much better known photographs devote much space to this controversy? 
This question does not make sense to me, could you please rephrase it? 
#Does this section deal with any imitation or controversy that's independent of Johnson?
Yes, and it is part of your second question above. 
#Insult to Injury, the Chapman Brothers' reworking of Goya's Los desastres de la guerra (which lacks an article), doesn't get a mention within the brief discussion of that series at Francisco Goya but is discussed at Jake and Dinos Chapman. 
An issue regarding Goyas work is not germane as it is not copyright in the United States, which is where the copyright infringement of Eisenstaedts photograph is occurring. 
This article purports to be about one or more photographs.
This article is about one published photograph, its selection for publication from four exposures, its creator, the history of its nature, fame, public interest, subjects, value as a work of art, its legal protection by copyright and the recent infringements of that which are occurring when reproduction rights are available for purchase and consent could be obtained from the holder of the copyright since the 1995 death of the photographer, contrast of the image with another that one of the infringers claims to have used to derive statues that exactly display portions which could not have been derived from the photograph without a copyright protection, fictional and graphic references to or allusions to it. 
Johnson has his own article ("John Seward Johnson II").
Yes, it is perfunctory, originally quite self-promoting, posted by his own public relation assistants and later altered minimally to cite more factual information about the professional criticisms (panning) of what he makes with his direct casts of living bodies and now the computer generated manufactured items that are spit out of his wizard of Oz device. Being a relative by marriage to a movie star is listed as one of his crowning achievements. Perhaps it is. 
Which is the better place to describe Johnson's derivatives, this article or John Seward Johnson II? If the former, why?
The article is about V-J Day in Times Square by Alfred Eisenstaedt not about Johnson, who is not taken seriously by art critics or museums and has been panned throughout his life for trivial works and, who now is being pilloried for the huge blatant copies he is making of the works of famous artists. Alfred Eisenstaedt is a highly recognized and revered artist who has garnered praise from around the world for his photography. Johnson pales in comparison to Eisenstaedt. Why would one shift discussion of copyright infringement of Eisenstaedt’s work to one of the infringers for a more complete discussion? 
#Currently more detail is provided at John Seward Johnson II than here. 
Several edits have removed the discussion again you participated in that now you use that removal as a rationale. That device seems rather circular. 
Would this be instantly obvious to somebody who read this article and has not yet read that one? 
Blue links quickly take readers to more information. It is a characteristic of these articles. Readers are used to them. 
If not, and if providing more information there is proper, is it not helpful to point the reader to a fuller discussion there?
In my editorial opinion, it would not be appropriate to send readers to another article to read a fuller discussion related to Eisenstaedts photograph which is the topic of this article. 
Many editors have devoted time to this article. Restoration of many of your cuts is my recommendation and to call for better references if the ones presented are inadequate or missing. That is another convention here. Their relationships to Eisenstaedt and his work are germane. Restoration of you many cuts also would save other editors a great deal of time. I especially recommend that you make your numerous changes in a single edit – it is rather tedious to have to mush through all of your multiple single edits that have been made at one sitting with separate entries. It encourages wholesale reversal or abandonment of the page through discouragement. Although not the author of most of the edits you have cut, I have taken the time to address your list of questions, please realize that, going forward however, I have no intention to deal with another laundry list – I prefer to work on the article and to make it the best I can. 
Working together can create a good and useful article, tearing apart the good faith work of others creates fragmented ones. No editor is set as the overlord of an article and your “questions” after making so many edits as you have, implies to me that you have presumed that role and want to discourage other editors.  I hope that is not your intention. I believe that if you knew so much about the topic to be such, you would not have so many questions. If you do not, I challenge your justification for the massive cuts of the work of other editors. Please be considerate of your fellow editors and assume good faith. 
Making this a good article is my objective. 
Advancing the expansion of Johnson’s article may be your personal objective, but that is another matter, which is without merit to me. 
..............................  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a general suggestion, let's try to keep cool heads. Constant reverts are not going to help the reader. If we feel like we can't reach consensus on this issue on our own, why don't we request an opinion from an uninvolved party before anyone gets too frustrated? As for the article, In my opinion neither Johnson's page or this page is the ideal place for an extended discussion of his sculptures based on this image. If you feel an extended discussion of the statue and copyright claim are appropriate from an encyclopedic perspective I suggest you start a new article titled something close to "Unconditional Surrender copyright controversy." We could link to it from the "copyright controversy" section with a main tag. Jminthorne (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with the article title you suggested; it is a better title than the one I suggested. I hope no one it insulted by my concern that tempers were about to flare; an ounce of prevention and all that, right? Jminthorne (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 83d40m, I sense that you are disgusted by the works of Johnson or the promotion of these. You're fully entitled to your disgust. However, you don't provide citations to back up what you're saying; and even if you could provide them, this talk page would not be the place. If you want to write about Johnson, then do so in the article about Johnson. But do so meticulously, and bearing in mind not only Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply to all articles, but also those that additionally apply to articles about living people. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: J and Hoary, no offense taken - I responded as I did to try to stress that I did not feel hot-headed here, but strongly feel differently about some of the cuts. That needs to be hashed out when that occurs. I try to keep my personal feelings about this artist out of the article -- it is not appropriate there. I have used the opinions of others to document what I see as the reality here. He is widely panned in professional and art criticism venues, I will get a good source for that. I would not be a good author for expanding his article because I would find it difficult to find authoritative sources in the fine art field to create a balance. Aside from the foundations and venues he had created himself, it is difficult to find a serious positive review of his work. The only one who comes to mind is the director of the D.C. museum who made apologies in advance for the exhibit, put on for monetary advantages from a large draw. His statement was, essentially, that everyone loved to hate Johnson's work, but that after a close examination of the subject of the exhibit he could find a tangential excuse for presenting it. The museum practically lost its professional credentials in fine art circles afterward because of their action. I made edits to his article because I just could not leave the canned pr from his staff as our article, so I tackled it. I do want to see the article on V-J Day in Times Square developed fully and fairly. I will work with you to achieve that. My time is limited right now, will try to get the contact strip up-loaded and posted to the article. Unfortunately, the detail will be poor since it will have to be quite small for me to make a horizontal image of it. Will begin an article about the copyright issue as well. Takes a lot of time as you know. ----83d40m (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your patience on this 83d40m. As I am sure you are aware there is reason to be extra cautious since the discussion includes both potentially contentious information about a living person and coverage of an ongoing civil dispute. Jminthorne (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course -- we all have the same objective and having the participation of other good editors always is helpful. I am confident that we will achieve consensus on details presented on this topic. ----83d40m (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replies to Hoary questions

message: Hoary: What is the source for the assertion that All of the statues show the lower legs of the subjects as represented only in the Eisenstaedt photograph, or is it some combination of OR and OS?
IP: The photograph by Eisenstaedt and the one by Jorgenson are displayed in the article clearly the Jorgenson photograph differs in that all of the legs are not shown. Pointing that out as a significant problem with a claim that it is the source of images that do display the legs in exactly the positions in the Eisenstaedt photograph is a typical component of articles.
It's a typical component of articles, but not of Wikipedia articles, where it would be "original synthesis". -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think making the observation that the legs aren't visible in Jorgenson's work is ok from an OS perspective; it would be the conclusion that this is a problem for the origin claim that would violate OS. Jminthorne (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jninthorne and will make the edit if agreed to. ----  83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was able to make that insertion first, see if it is agreeable to all ..............65.196.169.194 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of it. It is just one controvery. Your source does not use the "and a derivative" language so it's wrong to attribute it to Pincus (it would be better if we had the primary source of Time making the copyright claim). I took the last two sentences back out because they were unsourced, editorially undesirable (irrelevant to an article about the photograph), and still violated OS the way they were phrased. Jminthorne (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: FYI, the applicable policy is WP:SYN, not WP:OS. Jminthorne (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: J, do you want me to attempt to put this into an acceptable edit? Best to wait for sources likely being presented at the public hearing that will occur later in the month, however, I would leave it until after that occurs. ----83d40m (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A hearing could definitely create some good sources for the topic. Since the copyright complaint is tangential to the photo itself, I really would like to keep its coverage on this page very high level. I do apologize for the sequence of endorsement/revert; I didn't mean to be misleading. Saying "the nurse's feet are not visible in Jorgenson's photograph" is patently obvious and doesn't (in my opinion) need a citation or violate WP:SYN, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good addition to this article. Jminthorne (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I understand your principle. Persuasion is my inclination, not war. A few reversals may be required to achieve that however. I prefer to be thorough and realize that many readers skim articles and therefore, may have missed previous discussion. So, often I reiterate or stress significant details. It also creates a concise statement in a single section of the article that can be used accurately as a reference. In this instance, the odd position of her feet could not have been deduced from the Jorgenson photograph, making the appearance of that posture in the statues the best evidence of the use of the Eisenstaedt photograph as the model. Without that pivotal detail, the distinct association with V-J Day would fail -- and the assertion of copyright infringement would be difficult to support. Her off-balance, unnatural, and awkward posture is the distinctive aspect of the image. It is the characteristic that makes it so different from a photograph of a sailor kissing a woman in a natural posture, which could never convey the iconic association. The Johnson statues betray their source quite clearly and so do the table-top replicas that followed. This is why I feel that it should be a part of the copyright controversy portion of the article. Further consideration may change your inclination. Please let me know if it does and I will add it -- I am not going to pursue that without your concurrence.  ---- 83d40m (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest waiting until the complaint develops a little more (particularly if it generates some additional sources), then starting a new article on the controversy and balancing the content of the new article with the teaser on this page. Jminthorne (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's copied, and "OS"

message: Hoary: What is the source for the assertion that Table-top versions manufactured by others quickly followed and are offered on the Internet?
IP: That source has been removed recently, perhaps by you, I do not want to take the time to comb through the entries to determine whether all of the cuts from the article are all yours, but it seems peculiar that you would cut things and lose all memory of the portions cut. Commercial links are discouraged, but I found these quite quickly www.designtoscano.com/category/more+themes/americana.do a site using it as an example of a category and www.designtoscano.com/category/more+themes/americana/american+statues.do with the price and details of their offering and believe that readers can find these readily as well.
I don't recall removing any source for this assertion. Thank you for the link. There certainly is a "healthy" market for kitschy trinkets, isn't there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, one of the characteristics of kitsch is its popular appeal. Its worst distortions must be tormenting to those associated with original creations so copied.  ----  83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statuettes

message: Hoary: What are the "controversies" (plural)?
IP: oldid=309544642 shows some of them and it looks as if you removed this information as well.
So here are what I infer from that:
#"copyright infringement of the image"
#"the suitability of the statue to the location"
#"the permanent placement of any statues on that public property"
#"the particular issues of unoriginality, mechanical construction, and kitschy nature of the statue"
The first of these is backed up by no source whatever. One article (cited elsewhere) does say that a spokesperson for Life claims copyright infringement. However, there's a big difference between (a) assertion of infringement by an aggrieved party, and (b) actual infringement.
The second, third and fourth of these are backed up by three footnotes. The first: a podcast in which two local residents chat. The second: a video. The third: a letter to the editor. Because of computer glitches (not your fault, of course), I can't immediately hear/see either the first or the second. The description of the first makes it seem trivial, however. As for the third, it's very sketchy. He says it's unoriginal and he doesn't want it in Sarasota, but that's about all. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other sources exist, but suggest waiting for the dust to settle on the one in Sarasota before choosing the best to quote. The battle still rages, but once the public input to the municipal government is concluded in September, there will be ready access to assessments, documents, and such -- in public domain -- as well as the judgment of the elected officials to resolve the controversy there. It seems to be close to a final resolution. In an unlikely outcome -- if the statue is placed there -- although the controversy then, likely, would continue, hopefully there would be factual discussions in the press rather than so much fanning of the flames and the resulting posturing. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But here's a simpler option. Until there's more than a trivial amount of news coverage, skip the whole business. After all, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you suggest, and as I mentioned above, delay is going to have to be the solution, because the public hearing will provide acceptable references. There is a plethora rather than a trivial amount of coverage, but apparently the major local newspaper is neither entertaining nor seeking facts through investigative reporting, leaving the issue to be hashed out endlessly by guest columnists, letter writers, and forums. There is no competition with another daily newspaper for motivation. An Internet site and the local nonprofit radio station have been providing more professional reporting than the Sarasota Herald Tribune. With these sources cited as inadequate, sifting through all of the items mentioned -- to pursue sources for well-founded statements -- is dreadfully time-consuming. ---- 83d40m (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The controversies, plural

message: Hoary: The only solid source adduced so far for this controversy has been a single article in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
IP: Other sources were removed, again it looks as if by you. There are many newspaper articles and guest editorials. Surrender-statue-poses-a-legal-nightmare. Suggest a call for more or better references or placing them.
I saw newspaper columns, not articles. Please specify any dispassionate article about the controversy that I have removed. 
This latest one has "the founder of Rare Innovation, a business development, sales and marketing company" getting greatly worked up about the legal ramifications. But behind all the froth about patriotism, China, Marxism, etc, he's curiously vague about the law. "The U.S. Court of Appeals made it clear that even a gallery that shows the object is culpable," he says. Which decision would that be?
:in Rogers v. Koons -- a good article on that from the perspective of artists is Design Observer, dated 01.21.08, you may have to make a search for Koons on that page and if so, the name of the case is perhaps the second result. It contains a lengthy discussion of the case. Many links below that in discussion, provide other cases. ---- 83d40m (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest waiting as discussed above for more acceptable sources. The press seems to be milking the controversy at the moment. Given the patriotism spin placed by the proponents, there seems to be reluctance for the press to make any inquires of their own... no dispassionate coverage has taken a serious look at the issues, save the news program already linked to the article (Local Matters), which you refer to as a chat, but which is a real hour-long debate including facts and opinions. There is plenty of misinformation being poured on, lots of letters to the editor, guest editorials, blogs upon blogs, e-mail campaigns, bogus "petitions" assembled on the Internet with many duplications (including the petition collectors!) and no verification of residency, and (can you believe it) personal attack dogs set upon some of the players. Waiting for the end of play should yield more useful press coverage. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for the controversy

message: Hoary: Why should a WP article on one or more much better known photographs devote much space to this controversy?
 
IP: This question does not make sense to me, could you please rephrase it?
This article is about a photograph by Eisenstaedt, or about this photograph and also one by Jorgensen. If there are one or more controversies, even controversies meriting treatment in an encyclopedia, surrounding one or more sculptures deriving from one or both of these photographs, why should this controversy (these controversies) be dealt with in the article on the photograph(s)? 
IP: This article is about one published photograph, its selection for publication from four exposures, its creator, the history of its nature, fame, public interest, subjects, value as a work of art, its legal protection by copyright and the recent infringements of that which are occurring when reproduction rights are available for purchase and consent could be obtained from the holder of the copyright since the 1995 death of the photographer, contrast of the image with another that one of the infringers claims to have used to derive statues that exactly display portions which could not have been derived from the photograph without a copyright protection, fictional and graphic references to or allusions to it.
No. Simple matters first. This article is not about the creator of the photo. He merits and gets his own article. So even though he's directly and indisputably relevant to the photo, he's not discussed in this article.
:I would opt for inclusion, if it is related to the photographs it is relevant for discussion at the article on the photograph. We have quoted him and his creative relationship to the photograph is fundamental, a threat to that is a copyright infringement launched since his death -- so he is not the one making this assertion.  It has moved on to the current holder. The presence of these issues reinforces the cultural importance of the photograph -- as an icon that rallies polarization between exploitation and protection. It certainly qualifies for inclusion here as well as in an article on the copyright issues. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and it is the likely fate of that section.  ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes -- it is debatable, and I expect we have a way to go... by the time we reach consensus, by definition, we all will be satisfied with the result. Hashing it out is essential.  I will have to defer further work on this until later in the weekend.  ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why here?

message: And five or six years later, we get this addition. Reminder: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: And five or six years later

message: I renamed a few of the sections in an attempt to make the article easier to navigate, but I am sure there is still room for improvement. Jminthorne (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Titles 

message: Over the last few days I've removed the following pop-culture trivia:
1. The 1990 Bart the General episode of The Simpsons spoofed World War II imagery as it told the story of how Bart Simpson and his neighborhood friends successfully defeated school bully Nelson Muntz. After Nelson and his henchmen were defeated and the children celebrated, a Springfield boy spontaneously kissed Lisa Simpson in a pose similar to Eisenstadt's photo. Lisa then slapped the boy and yelled, "Ewww, knock it off!"
:Sounds very trivial even within this episode.
2. In the 2009 film Watchmen, set in an alternate reality, the lesbian superhero, Silhouette, takes the place of the sailor in the photograph, kissing the unidentified nurse.
:This "superhero" is so superheroic that she's mentioned one (1) time within the long article on this film, suggesting that this too is very trivial even within this film.
3. To mark the end of a week-long "war" between two classes in the online shooter Team Fortress 2, a parody of the picture was posted on the games official blog, replacing the two subjects with two other characters from the game universe.TF2 Blog - VI Day!
:At least this has a source (which I've reformatted above for visibility), but -- a parody of a photo was posted on a blog? This looks to me like a parody of a "trivia" item.
4. In the 2010 film, Letters to Juliet, the main character Sophie references this picture in her journalist writing.
:However she may "reference" it, the "reference" isn't sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the long synopsis within the article on the film.
Hoary (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "References in popular culture"

message: There doesn't seem to be any mention of the man being hit by the sailor, which seems like a important detail that's been left out. It would also better illustrate the lack of consent alluded to in the article. Reading the discussion, it seems as though the other pictures clearly show her striking him. Could somebody please source this and integrate it into the proper section of the article?
76.66.191.116 (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striking the man 

message: Nbwilkes (contributions) "Added a paragraph and picture identifying the sailor walking to the left of the couple. The most visible face in the photograph". The picture is here; it was uploaded by Nbwilkes (Commons contributions), who specifies as its source "My father's navy photo".
Bluntly, what this says is: "My dad is in this famous photograph, and here's another photo of him."
It could be true that H Dean Browner is in Eisenstaedt's photograph, and that Nbwilkes has added the information dispassionately, scrupulously, and with the intention of informing the public. But we need independent evidence. Here's what the article says:
:The sailor in the white suit with the dark tie to the left of the kissing couple has been identified as H. Dean Browner of Columbia, SC. Browner is featured in an article in Sandlapper magazine, Autumn 2011. He didn't even realize he was in the famous photograph until U.S. News & World Report reprinted it for the 50th anniversary of V-J Day.
Who identified him, and where, and what are the credentials of this person? If this information is contained in the unspecified article within Sandlapper of Autumn 2011, let's hear it -- from an established contributor to Wikipedia (one who has made a wide range of contributions) who has carefully read the article.
As it is, the inclusion of this material is very dubious, which is why I'm about to delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another man in the photo 

message: The following article:  quotes Gerta and makes interesting comments about lack of consent. Probably worth including? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of consent 

message: This article is a mess. "Listed in the October 1980 issue as claiming to be the woman were Greta Friedman and Barbara Sokol as well as Edith Shain" - not only is this unreferenced, but we don't even discuss their claims. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of the women 

message: This bio of one of the claimed kissers should be merged here; he has no notability outside this picture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  based on what, exactly? Can you explain your reasoning more in the context of Wikipedia's policy/guidelines? VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

text: 'Comment Although I feel McDuffie is notable in his own right, this has not been demonstrated by the current article. This article is in desperate need of expansion if it is going to remain stand alone. Although I loathe the current notability policy, I always nod to consensus. As I often say, this isn't Mikepedia, it's Wikipedia. If this article is merged, please take as much info on McDuffie along as possible. Whatever the Wikicommunity decides, I will view it in good faith. Juneau Mike (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment I agree with Juneau Mike.— Vchimpanzee ·  talk · contributions · 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Glenn McDuffie]] 

message: The current issue of Sky & Telescope magazine has a rather definitive astronomical timing analysis of the Eisenstaedt and Jorgensen photographs.  One thing they point out is the upper-right BOND clothing sign contains a clock inside the O, and the time, while difficult to read, is clearly something like 4:50 or 5:50 PM.  In addition to identifying the shadows, what cast them, and when, they looked at the entire roll of Eisenstaedt's negatives to get clues from earlier and later photographs to narrow down the time of the kiss photographs.
They definitively rule out the claimants involving a 2:00 PM time, based on the fact that Jorgensen was still en route DC to NYC.
They conclude the time was about 5:50 PM, more than an hour before the 7:00 PM White House announcement of Japan's surrender.  As they explain, people were celebrating all day, knowing that the announcement was imminent, and it kept picking up.  The statement in the lede about the kiss being a reaction to the official announcement is just nonsense.  Supporting evidence came from the woman clearly visible in the Jorgensen photograph, on the left edge, under the curly "W" of "Walgreens".  She is still alive and was interviewed.  She had had a two hour commute home that evening, and provided timing and astronomical details that they independently verified. Choor monster (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky & Telescope article 

message: The latest addition:
:The surprised woman on the left in Jorgensen's photograph has been positively identified as Kay Hughes Dorius of Utah.  Natalie Andrews (November 10, 2006). "The other woman in the WWII "kiss" photo". Daily Herald. Daily Herald. Retrieved 2015-09-14.
That's very similar to this addition (by the same editor) of two years earlier:
:The surprised woman in Jorgensen's photograph has been identified as Kay Dorius of Utah.  
A difference is the new "positively". I don't understand the notion of positivity in identification. Certainly the string "posi" doesn't appear in the cited source. All that the latter really says is that this woman says she's the woman in the photo. Considering (i) the number of men who have confidently claimed over the years to be the actual man doing the kissing, and (ii) the fact that only one man did the actual kissing in the photo(s), why should we take this particular claim seriously? (And is anyone even interested?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A woman in the background of a photograph that's similar to the famous one

message: Lewis, Danny, The Woman in the Iconic V-J Day Kiss Photo Died at 92, Here’s Her Story, There’s more to the image than meets the eye https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/v-j-day-in-contact-sheets, Smithsonianmagazine.com, September 14, 2016
Revision as of 22:51, 21 February 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank)
Imzadi1979 (talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 884480754 by 83d40m (talk); sources provided don't meet our reliable source guidelines)
Tag: Undo
Difficult to comprehend your logic, am posting it again -- please justify any reversal. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: that webpage is not hosted at smithsonianmagazine.com; it's hosted at wordpress.com, which is a blog site. Let's assume for the sake or argument that it's a faithful copy of the original article. In that case, it's a probably copyright violation, and we're not supposed to link to copyright violations. The alternative is that it is not a faithful copy of the original, and then we can't give it an reliability. In short, if it was really published in Smithsonian, then someone should be able to locate and cite the original article, not that copy.Additionally, the link has a different title and different attributed author, so the citation is not correct as given and should be:  I can so no connection to Smithsonian anywhere at that link. Imzadi 1979 →  19:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smithsonian not a reliable source?  

message: Is there archived discussion about merging a George Mendonsa article with this one? The first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Zimmer_Friedman includes "kissed by Navy sailor, George Mendonsa (1923–2019[1]) in the iconic V-J Day in Times Square" with square brackets round George Mendonsa but that page redirects to this article. Since the V-J Day link to this article follows a few words later it seems logical to remove them unless its intended there should be a George Mendonsa article. Mcljlm (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Mendonsa