Talk:V-J Day in Times Square

Edith Shain

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Am-ny-kiss.jpg

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)

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)

Recent Reunion

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)

Imitations and Controversy

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)

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)

"resistance put up by the woman"

In this edit, summarized "added a link to "Reject 'copycat' sailor statue" letter by Ralph Graves (writer) which provides historical details about Life publication and details about the contact strip", User:83d40m adds:

The full photographic contact strip retained in the archives of the current copyright holder documents clear evidence of the resistance put up by the woman to fend off a man who would not let go of her while four exposures were made by a slow, mechanical camera and a crowd gathered which displayed expressions ranging from astonishment to amusement. The exposure chosen by the photographer for publication is the least graphic of the struggle, but the caption published below the photograph hints about it and the article in which it is included alludes to it as well. Unless well researched, that understanding has dimmed with time as the image assumed an iconic status.

and a link to a letter that does not provide historical details about publication, does not mention contact prints or negatives, and says nothing about any resistance put up by any woman.

I'm therefore about to remove this material. If there's evidence for its veracity, let's see the evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored the entry because I have provided the reference that I failed to place earlier. The letter discusses the research into the men and women who claimed to be the subjects. Sorry for the inconvenience created by my missing that part of my post. ----83d40m (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The freshly inserted reference is unconditionalsurrender.wordpress.com/against-her-will/, an anonymously written page belonging to a blog not by a historical or photographic (or feminist) organization but by an unnamed individual or organization that opposes the erection/retention of a kitschy sounding statue deriving legitimately or otherwise from one of the photos.

What's written in the blog entry looks interesting and moderately persuasive. But that's merely my reaction, which is of no consequence. Let's wait till it has persuaded somebody writing in a source of the kind that Wikipedia takes seriously. Till then, this material goes. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the issue with blogs per se -- however, there is a great deal of material in the Sarasota papers and magazines on this, with references to the issue itself and to all pages of the unconditional surrender blog: letters to the editor, entries on newspaper blogs, entries on newspaper forums, as well as local media such as television and radio programs and news. Some of this is used as references in this article already. This is a furious community-wide controversy similar to the one that another copy of the same statue created in San Diego when an attempt was made to place a copy of it there, before it was cast out by its citizens.

There are many pages to the blog. It is concerned about the statue and the page with the original contact strip, the shot of the tableau presented in Life magazine, and other published images of August 14, 1945 in the U.S. are not the thrust of the blog, they are support material in a battle about the ethics of a copyright infringement of the Eienstaedt photograph, the artistic merit of a statue, and concerns in the community about efforts to install the statue prominently in Sarasota. I don't see this as a "feminist" issue since many men acknowledge freely that the encounter seems involuntary with just the one image being known. Once the four sequential exposures are seen, there is little doubt. The high resolution images clearly show her socking the guy twice with her left hand and attempting to pull down her dress.

It is disappointing to see the truth about an iconic image revealed, sort of like learning that the flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged, but I think these images can survive on their own merit again -- along with the truth about their nature -- because of the artistic nature of them. We publish the truth about the Iwo Jima photograph, why not this?

The existence of the four exposures has been well documented in numerous sources since 1945, including the quotes by Eisenstaedt contained in our article. That is common knowledge that ought not to require a reference.

The images presented on the blog are derived from the Life magazine archives that are maintained by the Getty Museum to exercise copyright restrictions always maintained by the artist. They are readily available for viewing prior to purchase. There are various levels of purchase, some with reproduction rights as purchased for the blog. I have provided the link to the blog for our readers to be able to view the images where they are published. It is a rare opportunity to see the full contact strip.

The August 1945 Life magazine in which the original photograph was published makes two references to the questionable nature of voluntary participation of some (both men and women) in the kiss-a-thon photographs published along with V-J Day in Times Square -- I feel that there is nothing I added to the introduction that fails to be documented as fact in other places and it qualifies for inclusion in the introduction to our article.

Recognition of the obscured nature of the encounter between the two main subjects of the photograph helps readers to have a full understanding of the subject of our article. It already has been taken seriously -- Life states that the woman struggles to hold down her skirt and calls the man "uninhibited"; on the facing page in the article accompanying photographic tableau it states that some of the subjects of their photographs were not so "inclined" as others so the information has been around since the first publication -- it just got lost.

This information resolves the weird body language in the published image -- lots of clenched fists all around and, as the blog calls it, a headlock on someone who is thrown off balance as well. The two images showing the left jabs to his head wrap the whole package together. Let's acknowledge it and comment on why he wasn't arrested, but rather, was forgiven for the assault -- it was the end of the war!

Hope you reconsider this so we can restore the edit. ----83d40m (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issue with blogs per se / Then we agree at least a little.

there is a great deal of material in the Sarasota papers and magazines on this [...] letters to the editor, entries on newspaper blogs, entries on newspaper forums, as well as local media such as television and radio programs and news. / Little of this would count for much, unless the newspaper blogs are by newspaper writers. Where are the actual news items, or (far better) articles in the academic photo-historical literature?

This is a furious community-wide controversy [...] / Then I'd expect news items about it, but I'd still wonder why it would be relevant to this article.

There are many pages to the blog. It is concerned about the statue and the page with the original contact strip, the shot of the tableau presented in Life magazine, and other published images of August 14, 1945 in the U.S. are not the thrust of the blog, they are support material in a battle about the ethics of a copyright infringement of the Eienstaedt photograph, the artistic merit of a statue, and concerns in the community about efforts to install the statue prominently in Sarasota. / You say they're support material. That would be one more reason not to call this a RS. But it's unnecessary, as nothing about its method of publication makes it seem a RS (in the WP sense). (When I say that, I don't mean to imply that it distorts the truth.)

I don't see this as a "feminist" issue since many men acknowledge freely that the encounter seems involuntary with just the one image being known. / I don't see it as one either. And you'll note that my mention of feminism was merely parenthetical.

Once the four sequential exposures are seen, there is little doubt. The high resolution images clearly show her socking the guy twice with her left hand and attempting to pull down her dress. / Meanwhile, this is not shown in these reproductions. They're not high resolution. Their resolution is sufficiently great to persuade me that the interpretation in the text has prima facie plausibility. But that's just me, and I don't matter.

It is disappointing to see the truth about an iconic image revealed, sort of like learning that the flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged, but I think these images can survive on their own merit again -- along with the truth about their nature -- because of the artistic nature of them. We publish the truth about the Iwo Jima photograph, why not this? / I personally take a skeptical view of the too-repetitively claimed "iconicity" of certain images, of claims of spontaneous celebrations, and of military victories (though not of happiness and relief). I'd be mildly depressed by convincing argument that this photo showed some boor forcing himself onto an unrelated woman but not the slightest bit surprised. However, that's just me.

I have provided the link to the blog for our readers to be able to view the images where they are published. It is a rare opportunity to see the full contact strip. / I've no objection to provision of a link to some presentation of frames 24 (?), 26, and 27 (?) as well as 25.

The August 1945 Life magazine in which the original photograph was published makes two references to the questionable nature of voluntary participation of some (both men and women) in the kiss-a-thon photographs published along with V-J Day in Times Square / That's guilt by association. The blog says that that photo has the caption In the middle of New York’s Times Square a white clad girl clutches her purse and skirt as an uninhibited sailor plants his lips squarely on her lips. The latter can certainly be added, and it's legitimate to point out that the photo appeared in a series of which others had still less approving editorial commentary.

This information resolves the weird body language in the published image -- lots of clenched fists all around and, as the blog calls it, a headlock on someone who is thrown off balance as well. The two images showing the left jabs to his head wrap the whole package together. Again, I don't disagree with this interpretation. But which RS has it yet convinced? -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Related imitations and controversies"

Here's what the article now says:

==Related imitations and controversies==
In 2005 [[John Seward Johnson II|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 Goodbye''<ref name="pincus">Robert L. Pincus, "[http://ww.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20070311/news_lz1a11kitsch.html Port surrenders in the battle against kitsch]", ''San Diego Union-Tribune,'' March 11, 2007.</ref> but a spokesperson for ''Life'' has called it a [[copyright infringement]] of the photograph by Eisenstaedt.<ref name="pincus" /> 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:

1. 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?
2. What is the source for the assertion that Table-top versions manufactured by others quickly followed and are offered on the Internet?
3. What are the "controversies" (plural)?
4. 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?
5. Does this section deal with any imitation or controversy that's independent of Johnson?
6. 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?
7. 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)

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)

Replies to Hoary questions

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 [1] a site using it as an example of a category and [2] with the price and details of their offering and believe that readers can find these readily as well.

#What are the "controversies" (plural)? [3] 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. [4]. 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)

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)

Sometimes healthy debate seems hot, these heads seem pretty cool, and I have yet to see anything beyond that among those participating in this, so far. Resolution by consensus would be the preferred path for me, but the changes already made are problematic for me. The issues we are debating now have been fragmented into separate articles, the relevance of which to them is part of the debate.

I would not be adverse to a separate article entitled V-J Day in Times Square copyright controversy rather than the one you suggested. My reason is that Eisenstaedt's is the copyright being infringed, not the other way around. Also there are several potential infringements now, with the tabletop versions appearing. This issue can not be resolved easily until there is legal action taken. That will be driven by the loss of income derived from the infringement.

Johnson has to give away, establish displays of, make contributions to assure the displays of, or donate these statues to get them in public display. Typically, no one buys his stuff without strange straw-man transactions that can be traced back to him or his many organizations, if efforts are made to follow the trails. He has lots of money and a strong desire to be a famous fine artist. That is beyond his reach. It may seem sad to see that his work is seen only as follies and kitsch, but obviously he derives enjoyment from his efforts and he pays handsome salaries to many people who make a livelihood off of his endeavors, their promotion, and their defense.

He most probably has enough money to perpetuate the displays if his heirs do not intervene, wanting those funds for their own delights. His generation sued, challenging their stepmother for her four hundred or so million left to her by their father in what they deemed a folly when he disinherited them. They were awarded a mere few million each for their efforts. Time will tell whether his work is sent to the recycle bins to recover some real worth, leaving only curious footnotes about his kitsch.

Getty Images (who now holds the copyright) would be foolish to sue until a sale occurs, that is when a demonstrated loss of income is suffered on which a value may be established and demanded for reparations. Copyright law is quite complex and not only about the fact that a copy has been made. There are circumstances when that would be foolish to pursue. I make a statue that is a lousy copy of Snoopy, a two dimensional cartoon character that is copyright. The creator of the image has died. A copyright runs for a set amount of time following the death of the holder (unless renewed). I keep my dreadful statue in my personal possession, let's say in a sculpture garden I create on my own property or the property of a charity or foundation I establish. I may "donate" it or loan it to others, but am unable to or unwilling to sell it. Other than the insult suffered because of the poor quality (as stated) of the copy, there is no monetary loss to the holder of copyright. That would be an expensive satisfaction for the holder to win through legal action. If I make a sale of my tacky copy of Snoopy for a million dollars, even a half a million, then the holder of the copyright has suffered a measurable or quantifiable loss. That is when paying expensive attorney fees makes sense because there is income that is available to garnish (so to speak).

To the point, I would support a new article thus named and would expect some references to that in this article.

My continuation regarding the sets of questions raised by Hoary follow below -- rather complex issue, eh? I will get to uploading the image of the contact strip as time allows. I have inserted Hoary where he had me below in an attempt to reduce confusion since I will have to address these items there in order to avoid endless copies. Hope that is okay, and that it works! ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's copied, and "OS"

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)

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)

I concur with Jninthorne and will make the edit if agreed to. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

FYI, the applicable policy is WP:SYN, not WP:OS. Jminthorne (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statuettes

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)

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)

The controversies, plural

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:

1. "copyright infringement of the image"
2. "the suitability of the statue to the location"
3. "the permanent placement of any statues on that public property"
4. "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)

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)

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)

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)

Source for the controversy

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)

Yes, the fact that this was published is evidence that there is a controversy. Well, opposition to publicly displayed statues is a humdrum phenomenon. But where is the dispassionate news coverage that would lift this instance above the merely humdrum? -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Why here?

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)

As for "fictional and graphic references to [the photo] or allusions to it", these generally go under "References in popular culture", a well established euphemism for "Trivia". Now and again such lists are purged.

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

Now for the meat: "its legal protection by copyright and the recent infringements of that which are occurring when reproduction rights are available for purchase". For all I know there's a copyright infringement. But I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps you are, but even your double insistence that it's a copyright infringement and that you are fully qualified to say so would be of no consequence. What reliable sources state that it is, or is likely to be, a copyright infringement? Without reliable sources, this is just so much hot air. And even with reliable sources, it's debatable whether the matter would belong in this article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, don't know how to edit or add comment... some editor, kindly add reference (and photo?) to this : http://www.publicola.net/2010/12/22/afternoon-jolt-weekly-cover-is-awesome/ . ~~guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.79.229 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And five or six years later

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)

Section Titles

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)

"References in popular culture"

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.<ref>[http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=3261 TF2 Blog - VI Day!]</ref>

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)

Striking the man

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)

Another man in the photo

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)

Lack of consent

The following article: [5] 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)

Identity of the women

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)

Merge from Glenn McDuffie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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)

• Strong keep The McDuffie article needs to be preserved, and expanded. He represents a notable moment in WWII history. The only problem is that his contribution to WWII is not fully demonstrated in the article. That can be fixed without merging. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Michaelh2001: Elaborated how? What else can be said about him? And I'd remind you that it is not even certain he is the person in the picture... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article is noble enough to stand on its own. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: 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)

• Merge per WP:SINGLEEVENT. If McDuffie has some other claim to notability besides being in this photo as suggested by MichaelH2001, that might be enough to change my !vote. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Merge, almost as VQuakr says immediately above. Where I differ is that VQuakr seems to assume that McDuffie was in this (very well known) photo. That's a matter of considerable dispute. ¶ However, I'm open to persuasion. If, as claimed above by Juneau Mike, "He represents a notable moment in WWII history", then I'd like to know what that moment was. As I understand it, the photographs represent a notable moment, and one of the two lead parts in them may or may not have been played by McDuffie; the belief that it was McDuffie turned the spotlight on him (intermittently); this would have provided opportunities for journalists to come up with evidence of notability, but all I can see is (in one of the three sources for the article): Women would pay $10 to take a picture kissing him on the cheek, Gibson said. / "He would make money and kiss women," Gibson said. "He had the most glamorous life of any 80-year-old." Which seems a bit thin (especially as I can quickly think of other contenders for the rather dubious title of "most glamorously living 80-year-old"). -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The article I read suggests there's some doubt that this is even the man. If he's known for only one event and there's no more than this, why have an article?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

'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)

Comment I agree with Juneau Mike.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - he was the subject of a historic, iconic photograph; secondly, it was his specific actions (kissing the stranger in a moment of joy) that inspired the photo. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. It does indeed seem likely that "he was the subject of a historic, iconic photograph"; if it was, then OK "it was his specific actions (kissing the stranger in a moment of joy) that inspired the photo" (although we might today term it "sexual harassment" rather than "joy"). But how does your argument compel retention of a separate article about him? -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. Glenn McDuffie makes no claim of notability for him, aside from stardom in this photograph. (Incidentally, his stardom in this photograph is disputed.) Of course I'll change my mind if Мандичка is persuasive. (See immediately above.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. Even if McDuffie was the actual sailor, notability is not inherited. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sky & Telescope article

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)

• So what prevented you from adding this information in the article? Ain92 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

There is no requirement or guideline that RS establish for us which cultural references are to be included. See MOS:POPCULT. There is an essay WP:IPC that advocates that position, but whether we should hold by that in this article is to be determined by discussion and consensus. Please apply BRD, with emphasis on the D.

I referred you to PLOTSUM not because we are engaging in little plot summaries here, but simply to point out that it is accepted that plot details can be mentioned without RS themselves verifying second-hand that said plot details are really in the works in question. I thought that was your objection about lack of RS.

I also believe that some of the summaries here that you have been removing are in fact way way too detailed, and that this can give the impression the article is imputing significance to them that we ought to have RS for. Choor monster (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT still requires adherence to WP:V and WP:RS - one of the entries restored has been tagged as unsourced for over two years, while another uses a patently unreliable source; the other two are also unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'm off until Sunday, but here are some quick comments.

Please note that, as I stated from the beginning, the media in question is always an acceptable source for its own plot contents. It does not matter if the Simpsons' wiki is RS or not, since the original episode is an RS. And there are certainly RS books consisting of Simpsons' episode blow-by-blow descriptions.

What's not allowed is interpretation. Calling the Simpsons' scene a "parody" is a borderline judgment call. I think it's acceptable, but I know many editors call that OR. I'm not going to bother to look up a Simpson episode guide to see if an RS calls it "parody". Parody or not, the entry is best rewritten to state the bald facts of a children's "war" ending with victory, a sailor-suited kisser, a photograph, etc.

Most of the entries need trimming. We do not need to name actors here, or mention extra gags like a cell phone going off. That's just fancruft. Choor monster (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Each of the entries has some component requiring independent sourcing - "plays an important role", "albeit showing a different camera", "most importantly", and parody.

Agree on the need for trimming generally. What criteria would you suggest to determine whether an entry should be included here at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and trimmed away, removing everything beyond minimal context and description. I have not verified any of the scenes except for Watchmen. The idea is that we don't need to include any material that needs independent verification beyond the presentation of the scene itself. And more importantly, for the purposes of this article, we don't care, either. The scene played an "important role" in some movie? Whatever.

The criteria for inclusion should be just two, really. Is the Kiss scene directly recognizable? And is the media in question somehow notable? Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A woman in the background of a photograph that's similar to the famous one

The latest addition:

The surprised woman on the left in Jorgensen's photograph has been positively identified as Kay Hughes Dorius of Utah. <ref> Natalie Andrews (November 10, 2006). [http://www.heraldextra.com/news/the-other-woman-in-the-wwii-kiss-photo/article_5e1391d9-d15f-5039-aee5-174068647290.html "The other woman in the WWII "kiss" photo"]. Daily Herald. Daily Herald. Retrieved 2015-09-14.</ref>

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. <ref name=DAILY HERALD">{{cite web |date=November 10,2006 |url = http://www.heraldextra.com/news/the-other-woman-in-the-wwii-kiss-photo/article_5e1391d9-d15f-5039-aee5-174068647290.html|title = The other woman in the WWII "kiss" photo| author = Natalie Andrews| work = Daily Herald| publisher = Daily Herald| accessdate = 2013-10-31 }}</ref>

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)

Smithsonian not a reliable source?

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)

@83d40m: 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)

Thanks, I will look into a better reference. I have seen the four images published and will attempt to track it down. Would it be acceptable to post the information with that reference? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

George Mendonsa

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)