Talk:We Can Do It!

Links for several words removed

While I don't like to see over-linking, I strongly feel that it was not proper to remove links as has recently been done. Perhaps most intelligent adults would understand the correct meaning of propaganda, but I'd be willing to bet that a fair number do not. The other links are proper and reasonable for the young Wikipedia readers. I will leave it up to the person that wrote the article and/or other editors for now, but if I get no response to this note I'm going to return some of them. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox to this article. It's been removed twice, the first time with the edit summary "Infobox not needed", the second "I prefer [the other] version". The first of these is false, as it makes metadata about the subject available to parsers and to services like [[[DBpedia]], and the second seems to put personal aesthetic feelings above utility and service to our readers. The infobox should be restored.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add an infobox. It's not needed for this article. The editors who wrote this page don't want it because it adds nothing to the article. If you can get enough editors to agree with you that it's needed here, then you'll have consensus to add it. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are certainly helpful but they are not required. There are even FA-level articles without them, such as Emily Dickinson, where the editors decided against the big box. In this case I thought that the aesthetic trumped the practical, because the image has its own text already, and it looks very striking standing alone at 300 pixels wide. Finally, I don't think the image name should be italicized (it is just a poster) but the infobox you used puts italics on the article title. Those were my reasons for reverting. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The italics in the infobox can be overridden. Not everyone sees images at the resolution you choose to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"The editors who wrote this page" have no special claim to it, per WP:OWN. Besides, I am now one of the editors who wrote this page. And consensus is not voting. You don't address my point about metadata, which demonstrates that your claim that the infobox "adds nothing to the article" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rediscovery of Westinghouse poster

The re-discovery of the Westinghouse poster remains something of a mystery. It was almost certainly after 1980 since the documentary The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter, which shows numerous posters from the WWII era, doesn't show or mention the Westinghouse poster at all. The earliest known reference to the poster is apparently a 1982 or 1984 issue of Modern Maturity (sources conflict). A 1985 issue of U.S. News and World Report also prominently features the poster. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I would so love to know exactly which media source was first in bringing the image out of obscurity. There's an untold story there. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The scholarly Kimble and Olson source says that the earliest media they located was a 1982 issue of the Washington Post Magazine, a Sunday supplement to the newspaper. I don't know the date. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the full cite is in Kimble and Olson. The cite is this: Patricia Brennan, "Poster Art for Patriotism's Sake", Washington Post Magazine, May 23, 1982, p. 35. Another article mentioned in Kimble and Olson is 1985's "The Legacies of World War II" by U.S. News & World Report's Senior Editor Stewart "Stew" Powell. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Geraldine Hoff photograph

I just reorganized the article some so that all the material about the Geraldine Hoff photograph is grouped in one place. I also added the photo under fair use. Hope that's OK. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorporating the photo in the best manner required exactly the actions you took. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Contacting experts for advice

I sent an email to Lester C. Olson and James J. Kimble, authors of "Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie the Riveter", one of the best sources in the article. I asked for some pointers for moving forward. Kimble responded, generally praising the Wikipedia article, and offering the following comments:

• Only two original examples of the poster are known to exist, one at NAMH and one in the US National Archives (both in Washington DC).
• Kimble agrees with Penny Coleman that Hoff/Doyle was likely not the model.
• Kimble recalls joining Olson to interview a co-worker of artist J. Howard Miller, and the co-worker showed a large collection of published drawings and photographs, indexed by subject, that Miller worked from to make his images. This recollection by Kimble conflicts with Westinghouse historian Charles A. Ruch who said that Miller was not in the habit of working from photos. Kimble says that he doubts the connection between the Hoff UPI photo and the "We Can Do It!" poster but that Miller might have worked from an existing image. He concludes that it is impossible to know exactly what inspired Miller.
• Kimble says the poster was probably brought out of storage by the National Archives in 1981–82 and reproduced to make souvenirs to commemorate the 40th anniversary of US involvement in the war.

I sent another email to Patricia Brennan, reporter for the Washington Post who in 1982 wrote the earliest known article about the poster. I sent the email to Brennan's WaPo email address which was shown in cached webpages but it bounced back undeliverable—no such addressee. Perhaps Brennan is retired or otherwise unavailable for comment. I have not seen a Brennan-authored newspaper article more recent than 2006. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Lester C. Olson responded on 31 May to say that his colleague Kimble was "on target" with his comments.

In late May I emailed NAMH curators William L. Bird and Harry R. Rubenstein, authors of Design for Victory: World War II posters on the American home front which includes the "We Can Do It!" poster. I wanted to know the provenance of the poster: when it arrived at NAMH and how, when it was rediscovered and how, what they first did with it (which was probably to reproduce it in various forms for sale.) I have not heard back. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed date for Main Page appearance

FAs shown on the Main page often appear on a date that is/was important to the topic. For this topic, important dates are:

• February 15, 1943 – first shown at Westinghouse factories
• May 23, 1982 – First public appearance outside of Westinghouse
• March – Women's History Month (U.S.)
• 1918 – artist's year of birth (no known month or day)

I think it would be great to feature the article on February 15, 2013, on the 70th anniversary. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the request here.--Chimino (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for your well-composed blurb. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Adjustment of the Article

After reading “We Can Do It!”, I think this article has a very well organization and introduction. I am able to learn the knowledge of the poster clearly. However, I think this article can improve further. When I read the article, I found there are some paragraphs from different sections all talking about the Michigan factory worker, Geraldine Hoff. They doubted whether Geraldine Hoff was the prototype women in the poster or not. These separated discussions made me think the logic of this article was a little bit disorderly. In my opinion, to make readers more easily understand the content fluently, this article can add a new and specific section particularly to place all the discussions about the prototype women in the poster. Here is a referential article “Criticism of Apple Inc” which shows many specific aspects of the criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B00:1200:3192:91CB:F5C3:CE1B (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on We Can Do It!. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/30/5738254-geraldine-doyle-inspiration-for-rosie-the-riveter-dies-at-86
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/30/5738254-geraldine-doyle-inspiration-for-rosie-the-riveter-dies-at-86
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/30/5738254-geraldine-doyle-inspiration-for-rosie-the-riveter-dies-at-86
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/30/5738254-geraldine-doyle-inspiration-for-rosie-the-riveter-dies-at-86

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} 14:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on We Can Do It!. 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/20130623045811/http://utnereader.tumblr.com/post/2585298665 to http://utnereader.tumblr.com/post/2585298665
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130126165316/http://www.helpsgood.com/post/17615327499/helpsgood-develops-rosify-yourself-app-for-ad?ad313a00 to http://www.helpsgood.com/post/17615327499/helpsgood-develops-rosify-yourself-app-for-ad?ad313a00

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) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on We Can Do It!. 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/20150929230351/http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-62386550/all-this-and-overtime-too to http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-62386550/all-this-and-overtime-too

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) 23:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

1942 Photo

Apparently the machine is variously identified as a lathe or turret lathe, but actually I believe that is a Pratt & Whitney vertical shaper and she is cutting a keyway in a gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.125.178 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with J. Howard Miller

Virtually everything published about J. Howard Miller is in regards to this one iconic image, and no obituaries are known, making Miller's 'notability' essentially a WP:SINGLEEVENT. Notability is not inherited. Biographical information aside from the poster is almost non-existent: even the years of his birth and death are unverified (a lot of unreliable web pages and even books may be repeating unverified info from Wikipedia and/or each other). It is unlikely that the artist article will ever expand beyond a short stub without significant overlapping of We Can Do It!. Basically, all of the content at J. Howard Miller can be adequately covered in We Can Do It! as prose or footnotes, per reasons for mergers. Existing artist categories can apply to the redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Good points. Only if there was another famous image or other famous work from Miller would it make sense to have a separate biography. And the lack of biographical sources is a serious lack. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Merged with J. Howard Miller

--Citrivescence (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Model

There is no evidence that the picture was based on either woman. The photo is nothing like the picture, and we are told that Miller used live models. The lead says, "Doyle's notion that the photograph inspired the poster cannot be proved or disproved, so neither Doyle nor Parker can be confirmed as the model for "We Can Do It!"". Later the article says, "However, the photograph of Naomi Parker did appear in the Pittsburgh Press on July 5, 1942, making it possible that Miller saw it as he was creating the poster." It seems confirmed that Doyle wasn't the model, and since there was never any evidence that the photo was connected with the poster, there is really nothing to disprove. I don't see why this article is spending so much time on baseless claims. It is certainly not neutral to say that it cannot be disproved.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Australian connection

The fact that a non-famous Australian street artist made a poster of Julia Gillard is not notable. We certainly don't need a whole paragraph. The sources used are Flickr and Tumblr posts. There is one brief article (that names her President). This article has a photo of Phoenix's poster as an illustration, but it doesn't name him or discuss the artwork (except the caption). This is original research, and it seems the editor is very close to the subject, being able to nominate the lane where the poster was. This should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge the rectitude of your position. The Tumblr and Flickr sources do not establish the importance of this factoid, and AnOther Magazine doesn't discuss the image except in a small caption.

Note that Australia was nowhere to be seen in the Good Article review and the Peer review of this article. It was in the Featured article discussion that Hamiltonstone observed that there was a distinct lack of global coverage, and suggested Australian sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So these issues were aired 6 years ago. As an Australian, I think this image is certainly known here, but I don't think it's anywhere near prevalent as in the US. It's very much an American image.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)