Talk:Maus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Same sentence -- different question

The book uses postmodern techniques—most strikingly by representing Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs.

My question is, how or why is this a postmodern technique? Would need to have a citation for that. And how or why is it "striking"? People have been doing that for centuries. Both of these statements need serious citations. Would probably be easier to just cut out the editorialization and say "The book represents Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs." Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Postmodern" is cited in the body (the lead summarizes the body and therefore requires no citations that are already in the body), and it's not hard to find sources for "Maus postmodern". The animals are not simple traditional anthropomorphism, which is where the postmodernism comes into it: the whole "meta" self-consciousness, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that the book has some elements of postmodernism, but I am questioning that the use of different animals to portray different groups of people is postmodern, let alone "strikingly" so. Calling that "postmodern", let alone "strikingly postmodern", needs a citation. The only thing mentioned as postmodern in the body text is the book feeding on itself by telling the story of how it was made, which is a postmodern technique. Using different animals to portray different groups of people had been done long before postmodernism (I'm not talking about simple traditional anthropomorphism). Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps one could say, in the body of the article, that Maus displays the postmodern quality of being "self-referential". I don't know what the source says. Does anybody have the actual wording in the source? If the source does not speak of the representation of groups of people as strains of animals, then we would be incorrect in the present assertion in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: That (self-referential) is already cited. What is in question is the question I posed in my OP. Mention in a source that of groups of people are represented as different animals does not equate to that being postmodern, much less strikingly so. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, except if the source says otherwise, in which case I would probably defer to the source. Can anyone provide a a relevant excerpt from the source? Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What "source" are you talking about? All sources that describe the book obviously note that different groups of people are represented as different animals, because that's the major device of the book. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph within the body of the article with the quote "feeds on itself" contains two citations. I don't have ready access to either of those publications. The two publications are the 1997 Monica Wood book and the 2006 James E. Young book. I would be interested in reading the actual wording found in one or both of those publications relating to the "postmodern" dimension to Maus. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I found it here: "Like any good postmodern memory-art, Maus thereby feeds on itself, recalling its own production, even the choices the artist makes along the way." Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. However it's not listed as the source (nor listed anywhere in the citations); in fact the sentence does not have a citation at all. It does indeed appear that that is the source the info was taken from (unless Young repeated himself almost verbatim in the 2006 article). The other three citations in that paragraph are appended to other sentences, and the 2006 Young article cited is not viewable online without a subscription. Anyway, if the 1998 Young article that you posted above is the only source for the postmodernism claim, it only refers to the novel referring to how it was created; that's the only postmodern element. I've checked the two other viewable citations for the other sentences in that paragraph, and they don't contain the word postmodern (or postmodernism/postmodernist), so they aren't referring to the postmodern aspect. At this point it's looking like the mention of postmodernism should be removed from the lede, or if kept it should be another sentence entirely and refer to the actual cited postmodern element instead. Softlavender (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the only postmodern element is the book's discussing its own creation. Groups of people represented as different types of animals does not seem to be supported by sources as being a postmodern element. I think we can just omit mention of animals from the lede. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can omit the use of the different animal groups in the lede, because that is a major part of the article and book. We can however omit postmodernism in the lede, because that is just one small bit and one sentence in this article. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd hardly call its self-referentiality its "only postmodern element"—for instance, here's an article titled "Reading Art Spiegelman's Maus as Postmodern Ethnography", and many sources talk of distancing, etc. Maus is the single most analyzed graphic novel ever written—it's not hard to find sources, which would be a better use of time than discussing your own interpretations of the work or postmodernism. The animal metaphor is meant to (and frequently does) rupture, which is hardly a traditional use of anthropomorphism. The animals are not meant to be animals at all, and in several scenes the animal masks become literal masks. This ain't Mickey Mouse or Animal Farm. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever we say should be supported by a source (obviously) and should be clear to the reader. We still don't have a source supportive of the use of animals as a postmodern element. The above source might support an assertion such as: "Some view Maus as a form of ethnography.'The texts are concerned with depicting the complex relationships among personal histories and larger "official" histories.'" Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have to have a source for each manifestation of postmodernism in the book to support the statement "The book uses postmodern techniques"? There is no lack of sources. A couple minutes turns up:

* this describing Maus as "postmodern memory-art"

* "postmodern attempt to address the position of second-generation survivors and the difficulties inherent in translating experiences ... into words"

* "comics ... are not intrinsically postmodern, but Spiegelman's use of the form is"

* "Framing the Past: Postmodernism and the Making of Reflective Memory in Art Spiegelman's Maus

* "obviously a work in the postmodern mode"

* [a phenomenon of late twentieth-century postmodernism "Maus could be categorized as 'historiographical metafiction' ... a phenomenon of late twentieth-century postmodernism"]

How many sources is this single word going to be required to be laden with? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is, the sentence in question in the OP is not backed up by citations. And if the wiki article states that the book uses postmodern techniques, it has to state specifically which techniques, backed up by specific passages in specific citations. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So a source that states it's a postmodern work is not enough? Okay, any other hoops to jump through? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source stating that its a postmodern work is a citation that it's a postmodern work, not for anything more specific than that. Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is not always clear what is meant by "postmodern". If the article is to be useful to the reader we should be able to say something more than simply that it is "postmodern" or that it "uses postmodern techniques". How is it postmodern? In what way is it postmodern? To get back to the original question—what source supports that "the book uses postmodern techniques—most strikingly by representing Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs"? That is a full assertion. It is not enough to merely have a source supporting the first half of the sentence. The implication is that the representation of "Jews as mice" and "other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs" is "strikingly" a "postmodern technique". Is everything about this book postmodern? Perhaps it has some postmodern qualities. If so, we should specify and explain how or in what way these aspects of this book are postmodern. Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: In the body text, the wiki article states one technique of the book which is postmodern. It does not elaborate on any other techniques. That is the only postmodern technique mentioned and cited in this wiki article. Since the current consensus is that there is no current substantiation that the use of specific animals for specific groups of people is a postmodern technique, even vis-a-vis this book, I'm going to remove that part of the sentence for now. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So your solution is to remove "postmodern" entirely from the lead, despite the number of articles that call it a postmodern work? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to state that it is a postmodern work in the body text, with citations that substantiate, and then echo it in the lede, in a separate sentence. Or state in the body text that it uses postmodern techniques (plural), if you can specifically list and substantiate with a citation(s) other techniques beyond self-referencing, and then echo that in the lede in a separate sentence. Or alternatively, put the citations for it being a postmodern work in the lede (in a lede sentence that states it is a postmodern work); but whatever choice is made, the word "postmodern" and the mention of the animal symbolism shouldn't be in the same sentence because no citation has been presented that substantiates that as a specifically postmodern technique in this book. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Haw haw, but your condescension only makes your disruptiveness the worse. When you are totally aware (as you are) that there is a plethora of sources describing the book as postmodern, then removing that tidbit rather than adding the sources and improving the article is tendentiously making a WP:POINT---totally unacceptable behaviour. If you're not here to improve the article, then take your keyboard skills elsewhere. Perhaps 4chan. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey—in what ways is the book postmodern? I'm not saying it is not postmodern. I'm trying to initiate what will hopefully be a productive conversation. In what ways is "Maus" postmodern? If we can't articulate ways in which the book is postmodern, we can still tell the reader—even in the lede—that the literary critics consider the book postmodern. But I think it would be better if we explained the ways in which some see the book as being postmodern. Can you enumerate the ways in which the book is postmodern? Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How about you take a look through the sources and find a wording that conforms to the sources, is concise and readable, and that you find acceptable. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The potentially problematic sentence has been alleviated. No source specifically supported the assertion that the representation of "Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs" was a postmodern aspect of this book. I have seen no source supporting that and you have presented no source supportive of that assertion. It would have been irresponsible (original research) of us to assert that "The book uses postmodern techniques—most strikingly by representing Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs." This is content that should be supported by a source. We should not be telling the reader something that the sources are not telling us. If you are going to argue that many sources refer to the book as being postmodern, I would counter-argue that no source that I have seen specifies the representation of groups of people as animal-types as a postmodern aspect of the book. Note that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this again: the word "postmodern" was "relieved" from the lead by an editor with a particular POV with the word and who was aware of the number of RSes that talk about the work as postmodern or postmodern aspects of the work. Address that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, if a minimal effort is made, sources can be found for the postmodernity of the animal metaphor. Here's one asserting the animal masks are one of two aspects that make Maus "inevitably" postmodern. Are either of you willing to put in even this minimal effort? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That source is a conference paper. Here's the published version. I'm not sure how reputable that journal is, so there may be more reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that sources are abundant, yet these two don't appear to be willing to look at any of them (even when linked to). Take a look at Bus Stop's question: "in what ways is the book postmodern?" The answer is to google it, FFS. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking for sources but am going round in circles a bit (probably due to my lack of familiarity with literary studies). This source (and the paragraph ending "That, in 2015, the debate is still ongoing attests to the critical importance and aesthetic, historical and political complexities raised by Maus" in particular) suggests that characterising Maus as postmodern is still subject to some debate. This is quite an accessible read, incidentally. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"What is postmodern" is one of those perennial debates that more or less defines postmodernism. There are those who will assert, for instance, that Gravity's Rainbow is the ultimate example of a postmodern novel, while others will deny it's postmodern at all. The fact is that "postmodern" creeps up with great frequency in writings on Maus and many sources define it as "postmodern". We don't get to ignore that just because it doesn't fit our personal defintion of "postmodern". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about our definition. It's just that the article states that Maus is postmodern as a fact, when there seems to be at least some debate about how best to characterise it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't define the book as postmodern, it says that Spiegelman "takes a postmodern approach" and used to say "The book uses postmodern techniques" until Softlavender unilaterally removed that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, it states that the book takes a postmodern approach as fact, rather than saying that that is an interpretation of it. Anyway, this talk page is too WP:BATTLEGROUND for me, and I don't like the tone of the replies I'm getting when I'm just trying to give the perspective of someone not previously involved in the disagreement, so I'm taking it off my watchlist. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

IPA

An editor has asked on the Help Desk if an IPA pronunciation could be added to the article. Is there someone here who knows the correct pronunciation and IPA well enough to add that? Dismas|^(talk) 21:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've added an endnote. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation of "mouse" is /mʌʊs/ or /mɛʉs/ in Canadian English, with the Canadian raising. I pronounce the title of the book as it's described here, which is a different way from the way I pronounce "mouse." Roches (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FAR

I appreciate the fact that Maus article has been featured on the front page of Wikipedia (August 22, 2015) "as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" (end of quote) with over 20,000 views on that day,[1] but I am (and have been) troubled by the way it is written and I am thinking of nominating if for WP:FAR. Before nomination though, per our policy guideline, I would like to raise issues at talk page of the article (end of quote). I have made only one edit to this article in its entire editing history by quoting a reliable history book from Google explaining the concentration camp labour. I was reverted with a single click. This, nevertheless, has sparked a flurry of activity on my talk page at User talk:Poeticbent#Maus revert. Our discussion went nowhere, and I think I understand why. I also understand why the article is a target of enraged IP user attacks, such as the one from yesterday.

The WP:REDFLAG boils down to 'the pig insult' of course.[2] However, the way it is being handled by the article authors is but a small sample of serious problems with neutrality going far beyond racism. The whole article (including its so-called criticism) is a straight forward tribute to the subject, in conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Maus, the graphic novel, is devoted to a single real-life episode from the vast mass of material about the Holocaust in occupied Poland. It has been fictionalized similar to any historical period drama, and that's where similarities end. Huge parts of this article are devoted to Maus 'synopsis' and 'background'. The background of Maus of course ... not the historical background of the Sosnowiec Ghetto where the events take place. The article say little to nothing about the real Nazi German language of propaganda, where 'the pig insult' originated. – The Nazis did not refer to the Jewish people as mice in Der Ewige Jude; they used to say "Sie vermehren sich wie die Ratten" in their hateful plots; a chaotic mess of rats. The author of the novel can say whatever he wants ... he can call Polish people pigs, however, here in Wikipedia we cannot do that. Maus was produced during Cold War, decades ahead of the collapse of the Soviet empire followed by all the revelations about the communist crimes. There's nothing about the Cold War stereotypes in this article, disseminated in some American communities attempting to come to grips with their past and their public image. The article is written in a historical vacuum. Poeticbent talk 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The author ... can call Polish people pigs, however, here in Wikipedia we cannot do that—and of course never do. Further commenters need to keep this bizarre comment in mind when addressing what Poeticbent has written above.

Here's Poeticbent's edit that I reverted, which includes an extremely devious rewording of "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping" with no source to support it, as well as an extremely poor kludge of an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Here is my explanation for the revert at Poeticbent's talk page, with an offer to find a way to deal with the issue in a Wikipedia-appropriate manner. The "discussion" quickly devolved into threats and accusations, and no attempt on Poeticbent's part to find any kind of workable solution whatsoever.

Here's an interesting article by Tomasz Łysak that could be used to beef up the Polish angle—but of course should not be allowed to eat up the article. There's already a paragraph in the article dealing with these issues—including accusations of Spiegelman employing an "ethnic slur"—of which Poeticbent seems blissfully unaware (I'll AGF and call it an oversight). Poeticbent needs to keep in mind issues of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:WEIGHT, etc, which the editor seems almost committed to violating. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I would love to see editors other than Curly Turkey, involved in bringing this entry up to an FA level, contribute to this thread also. However, in the last 10 days nobody else said anything at all. – There is only a continuation of the same belittling of virtually everything I said, repeated by Curly Turkey on my talk page, and coupled with the laundry list of internal links in capital letters, with no relevance to the subject of my inquiry. I have already alerted Curly Turkey to the fact that there's absolutely nothing in LaCapra about the quote-unquote "little stereotyping among the Poles" [3] As a result Curly Turkey himself removed that line from the article, nevertheless, he chose to continue with the insults (quote): "bizarre comment" ... "an extremely devious rewording" ... "an extremely poor kludge" ... and so on. Please compare this with the user's own statement on my talk page (quote): I may have misinterpreted the source ... etc. Everything being taken into account, the complete absence of historical background to the Holocaust with special consideration given to the Sosnowiec Ghetto in occupied Poland with its courageous uprising, makes this article unbalanced and un-encyclopaedic. It is a tribute to Maus comic strip, with all voices of reason, pointing out to its graphic representation 'inspired by Goebbels', immediately dubbed by carefully selected commentators as radical right-wing. Clearly, the problems cannot be resolved here. Therefore, the next step in the WP:FAR process is only the remaining option, because the article is not neutral at all, with the sections on the Maus political impact abroad and surrounding controversy decidedly substandard. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• So nominate it for FAR already—it's clear you were never here for discussion. Jesus, you come off as exactly the type that Tomasz Łysak criticizes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• I dont see any serious problems expressed here just some OR and "I dont like that". A serious concern would have to show that the article misrepresents what reliable sources about the specific topic of the article write. That would require presenting some sources in support of specific concerns, not vague discomfort with the Spiegelmans artistic choices.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maus. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140226061141/http://dailyfreepress.com/2000/09/28/cartoonist-sued-for-1-5-million/ to http://dailyfreepress.com/2000/09/28/cartoonist-sued-for-1-5-million/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111005042229/http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=833 to http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=833
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120207232502/http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=838 to http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=838
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120116035002/http://www.buckslib.org:80/OneBook/Maus/unit2student.htm to http://www.buckslib.org/OneBook/Maus/unit2student.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Strange edits

Josve05a and Jasonanaggie, can you please explain why the two of you are repeatedly making edits like this and this to this article despite the obvious objection of other editors? It seems that you are running a script on the page which produces a misleading edit summary ("Tagging 3 dead links") when you are indeed doing more than tagging dead links. I don't even know why the script makes such edits, as it's taking a direct link and linking it to a redirect. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the result of the Disambiguation DABFix Program. If you try it out on the page you will see what happens when someone gets this article as a random page to fix. It is not really the fault of the editor as you cannot see the entire page in the script that fixes the pages.Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you are responsible for the edits made by the Jasonanaggie account, yes, it is the fault of the editor. For mindlessly running scripts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see my response here. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maus. 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/20141129013723/http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_1/witek/ to http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_1/witek/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427023810/http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners_pastwinners.php to http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners_pastwinners.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160315021003/http://www.harveyawards.org/previous-awards-nominees/1992-harvey-awards/ to http://www.harveyawards.org/previous-awards-nominees/1992-harvey-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation into French

Hello, fellow wikipedians !
I am working on a French translation from the featured article. Would you please be so kind as to help me with a phrase?
In the section "International publication", in Poland, the caption under Piotr Bikont reads : he set up a publishing house in 2001 to put out a Polish edition of Maus in the face of protest. The text reads: Piotr Bikont, a journalist for Gazeta Wyborcza, set up his own publishing house to publish Maus in Polish in 2001.
There are several meaning for "set up". Did Bikont trick the publisher to have them release Maus? Or am I totally wrong?
Regards, --Bédévore 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bédévore (talk • contribs)

• Bédévore: "Set up" in this context means "established"—he started his own publishing house. Good luck with the translation! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
I am currently working on the French side for the sections International publication & Reception & legacy.

• Maybe you'd like to add in the article that, in March-May 2012, the Centre Georges Pompidou organized a retrospective about Maus and Art Spiegelman : « Art Spiegelman : CO-MIX - une rétrospective de bandes dessinées, graphisme et débris divers ». The library of the Museum ( fr:Bibliothèque publique d'information) offers a guide about it : Dossier pédagogique, mars 2012 - Lire en ligne (access date : 2018 january 25th).
• There's an inaccurate piece of information in Awards ; the prize from "Témoignage chrétien" is awarded by a weekly newspaper. The prize is called "Prix Résistance TC" - and as far as I know, there's no such thing as "Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award". Such awards are granted by religious associations or newspapers.

Regards, --Bédévore 10:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed "Category:Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award"—I don't know where it came from. It's not mentioned in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, on the French side extra information was added about reception in France. Among other things, maybe you'd like to know there was an exhibition in the French Mémorial de la Shoah about Shoah et Bande dessinée (Shoah and Comics) in January 2017 and it included works from Spiegelman. Should anyone be willing to translate it into the English article, here is the mention. About sources : Le Monde published several news items about Maus and it is considered as a reliable reference among French newspapers. Regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

En janvier 2017, le Mémorial de la Shoah organise l'exposition Shoah et bande dessinée où figure, entre autres, le travail d'Art Spiegelman · .

External links

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm per wp:ext - one was not a link at all; unofficial study guides, etc." Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The view of Canadian Polish Congress

re: [4]. I can't say I am impressed by any organization who still uses docs (c'mon, it's 21st century already). Anyway, what we have here is a lengthy, ~90 pages long document by anonymous author, published by a small NGO, the Canadian Polish Congress. The question is - is it WP:Undue and WP:PRIMARY? Well, it is relevant - the article already has several paragraph on criticisms, and so one sentence that is clearly attributed to another critic doesn't seem that undue to me. I also do not think this is WP:PRIMARY; it is an analysis, so rather a SECONDARY type of a source. I don't see how it is different from some other sources already cited, for example [5] by American Council for Polish Culture (written by Peter Obst, an adjunct lecturer in Polish Cultural History and Foreign Literature at LaSalle University, except the ACPC entry is non-anonymous (and easier to access than the doc file...).

Considering this is FA, I'd rather keep the referencing standards high, so I'll also point out that we may want to discuss the reliability of this self-published essay from the homepage of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Vancouver Island University . I am also unsure if Alondon is a reliable publisher, whatever it is ([6] seems rotten anyway...).

Anyway, I don't see why the reference to CPS should be that problematic - it is no worse then several others that are already present here. Through in the spirit of keeping standards at FA-levels, and because the CPS entry doesn't seem to really add anything new, the best outcome would be to remove the low quality reference to Johnson and close the matter at that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The group is best known (at least to me, via Wikipedia) for publishing the works by the fringe author "Mark Paul", which appears to be a nom de plume since nothing is known about him. KPK is an undue, primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

They KPK has protested against portrayals of the infamous Kielce pogrom in theater, asserting lack of Polish involvement in this and other massacres (counter to established historical sources), and advocated stressing incidents of "Jews killing Poles". According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing". The following appears in one of their documents on their website:

While the gathering of accounts is still in its infancy, like many aspects of wartime Polish-Jewish relations, a fairly clear outline emerges of some sordid and shameful aspects of the conduct of Jews vis-à-vis their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule. It is an immensely important story that has never before been told and one that redefines the history of wartime Polish-Jewish relations. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945.

Asserting Jewish collaboration with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany who themselves (according to the KPK) were allies in 1939-1945 (our World War II and Holocaust articles would seem to differ with this account). This is a WP:FRINGE organization - particularly the Toronto wing of the KPK (from which the document on Maus was taken) - and it should not be tolerated here in Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Could you provide a verifiable (hyperlinked) source for claiming that Canadian Polish Congress is " According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing""? Or is CPC-Toronto different from CPC? A splinter organization, perhaps? CPC itself doesn't seem to raise any red flags in my research, at least so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The citation I provided is fully verifiable. However - here is a - link - it is behind an academic paywall. The KPK Toronto wing is more aggressive than the rest of the organization (however, I'll note that many of the regional chapters seem fairly defunct - the Toronto branch is fairly active) - they have an independent website and they seem to promote their own agenda (e.g. Paul is only hosted on KPK Toronto). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Johnston 2001; replaced it in one instance, and simply removed the cited statement in another.

So much has been written about Maus that it can be hard to decide what's due weight in many cases. If CPC is DUE, then aren't any of the thousands of other commentaries? What makes the CPC source particularly notable? Does it say something particularly new and substantial? Do other sources cite it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I agree. While I think CPC is reliable (for a mid-sized NGO, there is no rule we can't cite right-wing anti-communist organizations, and those seem to be in-passing descriptions anyway) I don't think that the source raises to the level of quality for other sources here. For example, ACPC source is at least attributable to a minor academic, but CPC source is anonymous, and that is a bit of a red flag. Who wrote it? If they chose not to attribute it, it doesn't bode well. And the source doesn't say anything we don't say already, after all (that portrayal of Poles as pigs is seen as offensive - yep, we say this with better refs). So personally I have no desire right now to restore that ref, through truth be told, I would expect we could beef that paragraph with more sources - at the very least I would expect that a number of articles in Polish mainstream press would say something similar, and we do already cite a lot of news articles.

PS. What about that Alondon ref? Can it be rescued? Seems like it is non-English anyway... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Alondon source is Hebrew? What was it about, and why would we want to include it? Honestly, the article could use a couple of spinoffs—one on critical analysis, another on controversies, and another on international reception. A lot of stuff that would be way out of scope here would be just at home in such sub-articles. I'm not volunteering to start them, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping User:Icewhiz: Could you comment on reliability of Alondon, and check if this links still works (appears rotten) and can the link be rescued, assuming the source is reliable and valuable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I rescued the link, and added a cn. Alondon is an ex-pat Israel magazine/website in London. The citation doesn't support the first sentence (1990 publishing by Kinneret) - though the sentence is correct. It does support the second sentence (lack of success, only first book went out) - which is also probably correct. Tzdaka himself is a somewhat established writer - he wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth from London. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation into French

Hello, fellow wikipedians !
I am working on a French translation from the featured article. Would you please be so kind as to help me with a phrase?
In the section "International publication", in Poland, the caption under Piotr Bikont reads : he set up a publishing house in 2001 to put out a Polish edition of Maus in the face of protest. The text reads: Piotr Bikont, a journalist for Gazeta Wyborcza, set up his own publishing house to publish Maus in Polish in 2001.
There are several meaning for "set up". Did Bikont trick the publisher to have them release Maus? Or am I totally wrong?
Regards, --Bédévore 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bédévore (talk • contribs)

• Bédévore: "Set up" in this context means "established"—he started his own publishing house. Good luck with the translation! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
I am currently working on the French side for the sections International publication & Reception & legacy.

• Maybe you'd like to add in the article that, in March-May 2012, the Centre Georges Pompidou organized a retrospective about Maus and Art Spiegelman : « Art Spiegelman : CO-MIX - une rétrospective de bandes dessinées, graphisme et débris divers ». The library of the Museum ( fr:Bibliothèque publique d'information) offers a guide about it : Dossier pédagogique, mars 2012 - Lire en ligne (access date : 2018 january 25th).
• There's an inaccurate piece of information in Awards ; the prize from "Témoignage chrétien" is awarded by a weekly newspaper. The prize is called "Prix Résistance TC" - and as far as I know, there's no such thing as "Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award". Such awards are granted by religious associations or newspapers.

Regards, --Bédévore 10:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed "Category:Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award"—I don't know where it came from. It's not mentioned in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, on the French side extra information was added about reception in France. Among other things, maybe you'd like to know there was an exhibition in the French Mémorial de la Shoah about Shoah et Bande dessinée (Shoah and Comics) in January 2017 and it included works from Spiegelman. Should anyone be willing to translate it into the English article, here is the mention. About sources : Le Monde published several news items about Maus and it is considered as a reliable reference among French newspapers. Regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

En janvier 2017, le Mémorial de la Shoah organise l'exposition Shoah et bande dessinée où figure, entre autres, le travail d'Art Spiegelman · .

External links

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm per wp:ext - one was not a link at all; unofficial study guides, etc." Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The view of Canadian Polish Congress

re: [7]. I can't say I am impressed by any organization who still uses docs (c'mon, it's 21st century already). Anyway, what we have here is a lengthy, ~90 pages long document by anonymous author, published by a small NGO, the Canadian Polish Congress. The question is - is it WP:Undue and WP:PRIMARY? Well, it is relevant - the article already has several paragraph on criticisms, and so one sentence that is clearly attributed to another critic doesn't seem that undue to me. I also do not think this is WP:PRIMARY; it is an analysis, so rather a SECONDARY type of a source. I don't see how it is different from some other sources already cited, for example [8] by American Council for Polish Culture (written by Peter Obst, an adjunct lecturer in Polish Cultural History and Foreign Literature at LaSalle University, except the ACPC entry is non-anonymous (and easier to access than the doc file...).

Considering this is FA, I'd rather keep the referencing standards high, so I'll also point out that we may want to discuss the reliability of this self-published essay from the homepage of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Vancouver Island University . I am also unsure if Alondon is a reliable publisher, whatever it is ([9] seems rotten anyway...).

Anyway, I don't see why the reference to CPS should be that problematic - it is no worse then several others that are already present here. Through in the spirit of keeping standards at FA-levels, and because the CPS entry doesn't seem to really add anything new, the best outcome would be to remove the low quality reference to Johnson and close the matter at that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The group is best known (at least to me, via Wikipedia) for publishing the works by the fringe author "Mark Paul", which appears to be a nom de plume since nothing is known about him. KPK is an undue, primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

They KPK has protested against portrayals of the infamous Kielce pogrom in theater, asserting lack of Polish involvement in this and other massacres (counter to established historical sources), and advocated stressing incidents of "Jews killing Poles". According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing". The following appears in one of their documents on their website:

While the gathering of accounts is still in its infancy, like many aspects of wartime Polish-Jewish relations, a fairly clear outline emerges of some sordid and shameful aspects of the conduct of Jews vis-à-vis their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule. It is an immensely important story that has never before been told and one that redefines the history of wartime Polish-Jewish relations. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945.

Asserting Jewish collaboration with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany who themselves (according to the KPK) were allies in 1939-1945 (our World War II and Holocaust articles would seem to differ with this account). This is a WP:FRINGE organization - particularly the Toronto wing of the KPK (from which the document on Maus was taken) - and it should not be tolerated here in Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Could you provide a verifiable (hyperlinked) source for claiming that Canadian Polish Congress is " According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing""? Or is CPC-Toronto different from CPC? A splinter organization, perhaps? CPC itself doesn't seem to raise any red flags in my research, at least so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The citation I provided is fully verifiable. However - here is a - link - it is behind an academic paywall. The KPK Toronto wing is more aggressive than the rest of the organization (however, I'll note that many of the regional chapters seem fairly defunct - the Toronto branch is fairly active) - they have an independent website and they seem to promote their own agenda (e.g. Paul is only hosted on KPK Toronto). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Johnston 2001; replaced it in one instance, and simply removed the cited statement in another.

So much has been written about Maus that it can be hard to decide what's due weight in many cases. If CPC is DUE, then aren't any of the thousands of other commentaries? What makes the CPC source particularly notable? Does it say something particularly new and substantial? Do other sources cite it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I agree. While I think CPC is reliable (for a mid-sized NGO, there is no rule we can't cite right-wing anti-communist organizations, and those seem to be in-passing descriptions anyway) I don't think that the source raises to the level of quality for other sources here. For example, ACPC source is at least attributable to a minor academic, but CPC source is anonymous, and that is a bit of a red flag. Who wrote it? If they chose not to attribute it, it doesn't bode well. And the source doesn't say anything we don't say already, after all (that portrayal of Poles as pigs is seen as offensive - yep, we say this with better refs). So personally I have no desire right now to restore that ref, through truth be told, I would expect we could beef that paragraph with more sources - at the very least I would expect that a number of articles in Polish mainstream press would say something similar, and we do already cite a lot of news articles.

PS. What about that Alondon ref? Can it be rescued? Seems like it is non-English anyway... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Alondon source is Hebrew? What was it about, and why would we want to include it? Honestly, the article could use a couple of spinoffs—one on critical analysis, another on controversies, and another on international reception. A lot of stuff that would be way out of scope here would be just at home in such sub-articles. I'm not volunteering to start them, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping User:Icewhiz: Could you comment on reliability of Alondon, and check if this links still works (appears rotten) and can the link be rescued, assuming the source is reliable and valuable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I rescued the link, and added a cn. Alondon is an ex-pat Israel magazine/website in London. The citation doesn't support the first sentence (1990 publishing by Kinneret) - though the sentence is correct. It does support the second sentence (lack of success, only first book went out) - which is also probably correct. Tzdaka himself is a somewhat established writer - he wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth from London. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Six paragraphs for something that happened two days ago?

Without regard to the nature of the controversy or issues, six paragraphs in an entire new section for an event that occurred two days ago in a very small school district seems way out of proportion, and smacks of recentism. It seems excessive to me. The ban will almost certainly be overturned; shouldn't the encyclopedia take a more measured approach to an ongoing event? I feel compelled to direct the reader to read my first sentence again. Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the length feels disproportionate. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm working my way through it, trimming unnecessary verbiage, over-citing, etc - haven't really condensed it much, but it's better than nothing. Anastrophe (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need every single remotely connected person's reaction ... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The initial statement is poorly considered. I would urge the editor to read the massive RS coverage of this, to understand why robust coverage here is appropriate. Or to look at the number of views of this article. 80,000 yesterday. Please look and compare that to the views of the Donald Trump (21k) and Joe Biden (38k) articles yesterday. Please consider how wp works, and the objective embodied in wp practices and policy of consideration of RS coverage and of interest to readers.

Massive RS coverage. Way more than enough to satisfy our notability criteria under GNG even for an entire article on Wikipedia. No question. And a six-paragraph article would be somehow .. too long?

And yes, it's six paragraphs in this very interesting full article on a Pulitzer Prize winning book. Does someone think that these six paragraphs are somehow just swallowing up the rest of the article?

Because .. no. It's not. Do I have calculate just how small of a percentage footprint it has to demonstrate that point?

I've read your title again. The ban did not "happen two days ago," as you suggest. Not that it would matter if it did. If an event that happened yesterday prompted 2-4x the views of the articles on our last two presidents, it would - to me quite obviously - be deserving of robust coverage.

Also, your prediction that the decision will be overturned is interesting in a bloggy sort of way. But we (I, certainly) do not know that to be the case. And certainly would not diminish this article on the basis of that crystal-ball thinking. Because I don't think there is a basis for that belief.

As to Eddie's comment on what we "need" - of course we don't "need" anything on Wikipedia. Not one article on Wikipedia, nor any paragraph nor sentence nor category is needed. Nothing at all. But this is appropriate.

Look at the Superman article. The most viewed article last month. Regarding a just-released movie. Please read it, and tell me which material in it you do not view as "necessary." And what six sentence you wish to delete. There's nothing about need at all in this exercise called Wikipedia.

As to whether it is "proportionate" ... it is beyond cavil that it is proportionate to an article of 100K bytes. I'm stumped if I have to explain why this is my view. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Coverage has not been "massive". Hyperbole doesn't substitute for proportionate coverage and policy-based article improvement. It's made a flurry of news. Such things tend to pass rapidly. This is core problem with WP - recentism. Overstating a matter in the broader context doesn't make the article or WP better.

As far as the rest of the passive-aggressive commentary, I'm not particularly interested. As it stands, this tempest in a teapot requires far less space to cover it appropriately and proportionally. Wikipedia isn't twitter, and shouldn't be driven by outrage politics. The long view should be primary. Anastrophe (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Coverage has indeed been massive. Just the coverage of the past 24 articles has been many times what would be needed under GNG to support the notability of an entire article.[10][11] And the same with the coverage yesterday - all by itself. And the same with the coverage the day before - all by itself. For the week, it overwhelming, and from all over the world.[12] That's of course what had driven the fact that each day this article has attracted more readership that the heavily read articles on each of our last two presidents .. combined. That's not hyperbole. I point to wp:gng and to RS coverage (you can find it, and non-RS coverage, in the links I supplied to you) and to views that you can see for yourself the statistics of. Let me know if you don't know how to check that, and I will walk you through it. The fluff fact-based subjective unsupported opinion is yours. Not mine.

Recentism, one view though not a guideline or policy, refers not to all events that are recent. Recentism refers rather to an event that might hardly be remembered a month later. Are you seriously contending that this will not be remembered in a month?

And I'm referring to wp guidelines and policy and statistics. I'm not crystal-balling -- you are. You are bringing up Twitter? I've never tweeted. And never read a tweet, that wasn't embodied in an article. This is about wp. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We certainly have different definitions of "massive", which I unreservedly reiterate is hyperbole. Coverage has been significant and notable; I haven't suggested that the matter not be in the article. Bursts of traffic are expected when news is made. Counting google search results isn't dispositive of anything. I am indeed seriously contending that this will not be front page news in a month. Recentism isn't about whether something is "remembered"; it is whether coverage right now of notable events is in proportion to their overall significance.

I've made no 'crystal ball' declarations. You've opined, I've opined. I brought up twitter because you used a blog as a source for Gaiman's tweet. If you can find an actual reliable source that takes note of his tweet, by all means, add it, I've no objection at all. The problem is that the section was rife with duplicate cites, unreliable cites, and overcites. It also had bad grammar and construction. I still consider it too long for the meaningfulness of this matter at this time. Outrage is a dime a dozen. Lets see how much this matter is in the forefront of news coverage in a week, let alone a month. Anastrophe (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the ban isn't relevant enough to have its own section (not as vital as the other sections). The six paragraphs can be summarized in just three: explanation of the ban; opinions by author and others; and sales. Another issue is that the section is overquoting when it is not needed. So, my suggestion would be moving the section to a new subsection under "Reception and legacy", summarizing it as explained above and reducing usage of quotes. (If three paragraphs is too much, we could write two by merging the opinions and the sales in just one, or write all of it in a single paragraph, like in Streisand effect#By other organizations.) ObserveOwl (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The ban clearly DOES warrant a section. Before the ban the book was not in Amazon's top 1,000 books, after the ban it hit #1. That is by far the most notable thing about the book. The ban clearly has more than enough sourcing that it could be kept as an independent article. It is implausible to suggest deleting a section that could itself stand as an article. Alsee (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Alsee. The voluminous and wide-ranging coverage in reputable major media outlets of the ban and its effects are more than enough to warrant its own section (though I believe it's bit too soon to create a standalone article). A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is by far the most notable thing about the book. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The book has played an important role in comics due to its academic attention. It has won several awards, it is included in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and a recent sudden growth in popularity is the most notable part of the article? Sure, it is all over the news, but I still believe this piece of information is closely related to the book's legacy and it should be a subsection of "Reception and legacy" (for instance, the awards table is a very, very important part of the article and it is a subsection of "Reception and legacy" as it should be). ObserveOwl (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So the same people who want "critical race theory" out of public schools, ban a book about the holocaust (gee, I wonder why), causing worldwide backlash and condemnation which is broadly covered by reliable sources and you're trying to argue that's not notable enough to warrant more than a single paragraph hidden under a general heading? The ban should have a separate article - it's one of the most disturbing and alarming things to happen in the US since that event that happened 13 months ago. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say the ban isn't notable - I was trying to argue that the book had already got a lot of recognition before the ban (someone was saying the ban was the most notable thing of the book). The ban is actually quite notable to me, I was impressed by the extensive coverage by reputable sources, and it could even be covered by a new separate article. I see that the section was further expanded after my first comment here, so yes, it now should be obviously more than three paragraphs unlike what I said earlier. My point is, the ban is a good example of the book's reception and legacy and therefore it should be part of the "Reception and legacy" section. According to Merriam Webster, the word "reception" is similar to "response", "reaction". The new section shows the response/reaction by those schools, and the recent spike in popularity also shows the interest (the reaction) by other people. I just think it's more organized to include it in the reception section. Also, it didn't happen 13 months ago, and I don't think it is that "disturbing and alarming". ObserveOwl (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if this article only mentions the ban as part of a reception and legacy section, it doesn't change the fact that it needs a separate article at this point. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind including a mention of this on List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, Antisemitism in the United States and Fascism in the United States. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Section moved

Without making any change to the content, I have moved the whole section about the School Board decision to be a subsection under "Reception and legacy", which I suggest is the appropriate place for it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor insists that this change, to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for how to write articles in a logical order, is attempting to hide the text about the School Board decision. That is irrational. The material has not been deleted; the section title has not been deleted (and still appears in the Table of Contents). Top level sections are about the nature of the book itself: this section is a reaction to the book, so it goes in the Reactions section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Excessive attention to recent Tennessee library controversy

The fact that a large fraction of the articles current prose and an entire section is dedicated to just this WP:RECENT controversy bugs me. This is excessive and it only deserves maybe a paragraph at most incorporated as part of the publication or reception section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps the way forward is to split the article so that this controversy has its own article, summarised in this one. Like Statue of Edward Colston. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This recent controversy needs to be kept in long-term perspective with the numerous other Book censorship in the United States controversies. I mean, how many times has Harry Potter been banned from American school libraries and how much prose do we dedicate them individually? All of the Harry Potter related ones are covered under a single article, Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, and I am not sure there is enough to say about this dispute to justify a separate article wholly dedicated to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Having thought about this further, I would not be opposed to a List of book censorship controversies in the United States or equivalent where this could be included alongside controversies related to other books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it censorship. No pages have been cut out or panels obliterated or images pixelated. Is there not a better list? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"book banning" maybe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"List of book censorship controversies in the United States" Why? We already have Book censorship in the United States, and it has a sourced list of banned books. Dimadick (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparing this to Harry Potter is a false equivalence. The bannings of Harry Potter don't come anywhere near generating the amount of backlash and condemnation as the banning of Maus. Christian moral panic over books promoting magic, does not come anywhere near the level of holocaust denial. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the article is the obvious solution here. The widespread coverage and the unanimous condemnation by notable figures makes this incident too important for it to be given a single paragraph buried in a much larger text. In addition to how big a red flag banning books on the holocaust is, this ban is part of a much larger far right attack on public education, such as the astroturfed moral panic surrounding CRT. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources give it "excessive attention" and for a good reason. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The allegedly 'reliable' sources use the word 'ban'. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• that’s a fairly absurd substitution of an individual editors subjective view for the massive international robust coverage of the subject, leading the book to rise over 1000 positions to number one on the Amazon bestseller list, I’m leading the article to have tens of thousands more views than the articles of LeBron James and of the president for a number of days running. Really, absurd view. We care more about RS coverage than about any one or two or three individual editors for years. I wonder why someone would try to hide this, in the face of all that, and while I assume good faith, that does speak to some lack of understanding of the goal of Wikipedia end of the importance of RS coverage. 174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of refs from ends of sentences

Some editor is deleting refs from the ends of sentences. Moving the refs further down in a paragraph. Even when the sentence contains one or more quotes.

That's unhelpful. The reason is simple. Sentences get moved around. Paragraphs get split. Those normal and common events can orphan the ref from the sentence that it supports. Which is most unhelpful.

In contrast, and to be distinguished, is the moving of refs mid-sentence to the end of the sentence. That is generally helpful and to be appreciated. The location of those refs serves to break up readability. And the movement of the ref does not suffer from the above problems.

It's too difficult now for me to fix the problem the editor created. But I would request that he consider this note. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your opinions on the matter are noted. The text before I began working with it was rife with broken references and duplicate references, and considerable over-citing. As well, random sentences pertaining to other matters had been inserted into the middle of unrelated paragraphs, lending a completely disjointed reading. I copyedited what there was to improve readability, eliminate broken references, remove duplicate references, and remove unreliable sources. Any modestly capable editor should have no difficulty moving refs should there be a need to move text; at this time, I don't see anything requiring that. The section does still need considerable trimming; it is a bloviation right now about 'breaking news', which is unencyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• You don’t understand that the RS coverage is far more important than your desire to hide this - it led to the book being #1 on the best seller list of Amazon, over 1,000 places, and is not the fleeting breaking news phenomenon you oddly would liken it to. You really might benefit from reading up what distinguishes an unremarkable event of momentary interest from this one. You don’t seem tk get it. It’s in notnews and other pages at the project. Really way off base. I think. No reason to seek to hide this. It’s covered by top RSs the world over. 174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spanish translations

According to a predatory journal there are two Spanish translations.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand that comment. Perhaps you can explain.174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing.

Parody does not belong under reception, as a subsection. Obviously. That’s illogical. Unclear what thinking is driving that edit warring. And the removal decades later - driving articles around the world in top RSS since January is not reception either. And it is so important it deserves to be a level higher. It drove this bill over 1000 points on Amazon best seller list to #1. It attracted articles in every continent, in top RSS, the world over. It drive readership btw to 80,000 a day of this article - it’s absurd to then act like a Tennessee county es board member and seek to bury it from view. What possible appropriate thinking could drive that behavior escapes me. Someone is seeking to bury it for some peculiar reason. And in my view that is disruptive. Though I gather some Tennesseans would disagree - but they are being mocked by the world. It’s not a look the project is looking for, because it is not in keeping with the goals of the project to seek to hide something the RSs are covering robustly. 174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Parody is a type of reception, I see no lack of logic. You need to explain.

Banning is also a type of reception.

It seems evident that you don't understand how levels work in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout but to summarise: the top level is the subject itself; the second levels give more details about that subject; the third level gives more details about that second level. The fact that a school board banned the book is not an aspect of the book itself, so it doesn't go at level two. It is one of the reactions to the book and so it goes as a subsection of the 'Receptions' section.

Your suggestion that anyone is trying to hide the banning makes no sense. It appears clearly in the table of contents, in fact it stands out in it. The article is not especially long, so it is very easy to find it. You might have had a point of it had been hived off to a daughter article (like Statue of Edward Colston was hived off from Edward Colston in a similarly high profile case), but it has not.

So please stop changing the section levels because your changes will not persist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)