Talk:Bob Ross/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vietnam

wasn't bob ross in vietnam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.137.24.32 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2003 (UTC)

I've also heard that Bob Ross used to be a drill sergent. Val42 05:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Substantiate these claims or dont make them please. We'd rather just deal in facts. Cokehabit 03:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Official Response from Bob Ross INC Over Image

Okay, everyone, I will be reuploading the picture with the "Legal" Version. Read the following to understand:

Hello Carson,

Thank you for your interest in Bob Ross and the Joy of Painting; it's a
pleasure to hear from so many of his friends! I apologize for the amount of
time it has taken to respond.

Attached you'll find a photo to use with your Bob Ross wikipedia article.
Please include the following:

"(c) Bob Ross Inc.  Reprinted with permission"

Also, in reviewing your copy about Bob, I see two small errors to correct.
(1) Bob's death was a result of Lymphoma, and (2) instead of saying "PBS"
stations you should call them "public television" stations -- PBS is only
one subcategory in the entire public television system as a whole.

Hope this has been helpful, be sure to contact us if you need more (this
time I'll be more punctual!).

Happy Painting,

Joan Kowalski
Bob Ross Co.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carson True" <crtrue@gmail.com>
To: <info@bobross.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:02 AM
Subject: Request for Public Domain / Limited Copyright Image of Bob Ross

> I am inquering as to if either A) a public domain photograph of Bob
> Ross exists or B) a one-site use of an image of Bob Ross can be agreed
> upon. I am currently working on the Bob Ross article on Wikipedia, the
> largest open-source encyclopedia online, and was curious if either of
> these were possible. A limited Wikipedia-only copyright can be granted
> to a photo if you're concerned about the image spreading prematurely,
> although a public domain image would be prefered.
>
> Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross
>
> --
> Carson
>

CRTrue —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 21 March 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for going to the trouble, CRTrue! I've taken the liberty of copying this item to the image's own talk page, since now it's also referenced in the entries for the TV show and the upcoming videogame.Rob T Firefly 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold?

Here we go. This page is now just a redirect to the main Bob Ross page. This should suit the purpose much more than having a disamgbig that really didn't do anything, since I just now started the article for the other Bob Ross (a moderate gay rights publisher who just died a few years back). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.59.250 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Parody?

I'm pretty sure it was Bob Ross being parodied in the Dilbert episode Art. Dilbert, Dogbert and Ratbert were watching Painting with Rusty Shanks where Rusty, in a calm voice, asked viewers to paint a taupe oval, represented by an orange circle. He was eventually killed by Leonardo da Vinci's henchmen.

---

I look at the dvd and it did look like him --67.180.138.205 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mall incident

The article says, Once, at an art demo at a mall, he was chased down in the mall's parking lot by traditionalist painters carrying buckets of water and shouting at Ross to "Scat!". That sounds dubious. Does anyone have a reference? Wmahan. 15:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll second this request. As humorous as it sounds, I'm more than a tad skeptical. - AWF

The Joy of Painting

This page says the show ran from 1982 to 1993, while The Joy of Painting articlw says it ran from 1983 to 1994. Which is correct? BillyH 09:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I believe Bob Ross' show was actually called "Joy of Painting II". The original "Joy of Painting" was on the air in the seventies, and featured Ross' teacher, Bill Alexander (who also talked about "happy little trees", in a heavy German accent.) I bought a DVD from the Bob Ross website, and the opening credits of the show read "Joy of Painting II". (The word "The" does not appear.)

Fumblebruschi 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also remember Bill Alexander's show, and this is very important info that should be corrected!

Could it be that the Roman numerals refer to the show's season? Because I have tapped a couple of episodes, and there the cpation reads "The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross XV". Including the "the" and the Roman XV. Blur4760 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The two are not related. Bob Ross did learn from Bill Alexander, and he even used Bill Alexander's products in the beginning, but Joy of Painting is not a continuation of Bill's show. The Bob Ross company has made a point of excluding Bill's name as much as possible. They'd rather you not know who taught him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.198.172 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section Defacement

This was in the trivia section: Occasionally kills from beyond the grave. This is obvious defacement and I've made an anonymous edit to remove the text.

- You got to admit though -that IS funny.

kabucas.com

Are these links legit? I'm sure it's a very nice company, but is it an "official" or well known Bob Ross source, or is it link spam? Jake b 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed mentions of Bob Ross Game For DS and PC

AGFRAG has since announced that the game will be appearing only on the Nintendo Wii. -al 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill Alexander + wet-on-wet

According to a page on the Alexander Art website (http://www.alexanderart.com/bill.asp) Bill Alexander didn't develop wet-on-wet painting, but did develop a product ("Magic White") that made the method easier. Does this merit an edit? --Edward Wakelin 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to make it simply state that Bob learned the method from Alexander. Fumblebruschi 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I further edited the sentence to re-word the statement that he "introduced" the technique on his show.

"friend of Cumia?"

I removed the assertion that Bob Ross was a lifelong friend of Anthony Cumia. The first mention of Cumia in this article came from an anonymous entry stating Bob "visted Vietnam according to Anthony Cumia." This line was later moved and changed to him being a lifelong friend. As Bob was 21 years his senior, I don't see how he could have been a life-long friend. Perhaps it was just a joke. If I am wrong, please add it back and cite a source if at all possible. Arx Fortis 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The ides that Bob Ross even knew about a tasteless "shock jock" like Anthony Cumia is extreamly hard to believe. 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, let's keep the opinions of "shock jock" Anthony Cumia to a minimum. Secondly, I was the one that added the entry about Cumia stating Ross was in the Vietnam war. He stated he met him in studio when he was very young to radio and that Ross stated he was in the Vietnam war, and then later Cumia saw an SNL bit in which Ross was a guest in a bit in which he was humorously depicted as a raving psychopath after being in the Vietnam war, as a sharp contrast to his tranquil attitude. Cumia didn't state it with the least bit of jest, but I assume a rabid OnA fan changed my entry to reflect the running "life partners" motif they have. Killridemedly 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube link has been removed. It was a copyright violation and YouTube had already yanked it as such. AnmaFinotera 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

prison

My brother told me that Bob was a murderer and that his shows were actually taped in prison and thats why he would always paint in a completely black set -Magikmm 08:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your brother is either pulling your leg, or is misinformed. Zerbey 17:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He painted in front of a completely black set to draw attention to himself and the canvas. Urban legends, yay! Buyable 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

his son

This got taken off the page, but my cousin, Bobby, is his son. I'm very proud of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.142.105 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Religious Beliefs?

Does anyone know what his religious beliefs were? He often referenced God in his shows. 66.191.19.42 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Birth

Where was Bob born? The article text says Daytona Beach, FL but the box on the right says Yonkers, NY. There's no explanation of the Jordanian nationality, either. -- Mincebert 12:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Death

I was wondering what Bob died of, hoping to get the answer here. I'm surprised that it's not mentionned in the article. Is it because nobody knows? -- Lyverbe 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He died of lymphoma [1]. It was mentioned in the article at one point, but appears to have been removed. 66.191.17.168 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

General cleanup needed

The section detailing marriages and family should be private life. The article is full of words like loved, sadly etc that doesn't seem encyclopedic. I would be happy to do it if that's alright with other editors.--The Stars, Like Dust 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

There are rumors that Boss Ross was gay, are there any proof to these claims? Tmursch 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the fact he was married three times and had a son proof enough that he wasn't? 68.118.72.97 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times did Elton John marry? 220.239.230.79 10:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He's too nice to be straight. --146.151.41.37 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless a source can be found otherwise, it's best to assume he's straight.--70.238.3.109 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's counter-intuitive. If there's no information either way, why assume anything? Rozencrantz (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Twice, but the second time to a man. 2601:283:4300:7AE0:A8EB:C854:49B9:8D2F (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Popular Culture section

While I was first reading this article, it seemed to be quite decent, until I got to the enormous pop culture section. It seems like most of the included items are minor and do not provide any substantive information about Bob Ross, who is supposed to be the subject of this article. Why clog up the article with such garbage? Does knowing that "Nickelodeon's Doug once fantasized about being a painter resembling Bob Ross" really increase our understanding of Bob Ross? I would like to request feedback on deleting the whole popular culture section, or moving it over to a separate article (where it will hopefully be forgotten) at a minimum. Ultiam 05:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree and since no one has voiced a dissent in over two months since this suggestion was made, I have removed the section completely. It was nothing but an area that screams "deface this article" which already gets enough vandalism. Such a listing of every little pop culture reference to Bob Ross is neither encyclopedic nor worthy of mention. If people really want to see that, they can hit IMDB.

I also plan to work on removing the trivia section by incorporating the relevant tidbits into the article proper. Also unnecessary. AnmaFinotera 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob Ross on Bill Nye

Bob Ross had a segment on a Bill Nye the Science Guy episode about eyes, where he talks about what rods and cones do, and paints some rods and cones inside an outline of an eyeball. (TomServo1 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Trivia

I made a contribution to the trivia section stating that Bob Ross was referenced in the British TV series "Peep Show" -- this comment was removed by someone called AnmaFinotera. Why would this be removed -- it is clearly trivia, and it is accurate, and is certainly no less important than some of the extant trivia, such as the MTV reference. Thank you --Drbauman 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was inappropriate, uncited, and considering most of your edits appeared to be vandalism, it was also suspicious. In either case, the trivia section was inappropriate as a whole and has been completely removed. AnmaFinotera 04:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the appropriate place for comments, but you're suggesting that most of my edits were vandalism? Have you taken a look at my contributions? I've only made about 15 or 20 contributions over 18 months, and the only one that I had difficulty with was the Bob Ross trivia one, because I couldn't figure out how to get the link to redirect to the TV series, rather than a disambiguation page. --Drbauman 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did look at several of your other recent edits, and several were also reversed as possible vandalism (Lawrence University's "bunny be gone" tradition). I'm not the only one to have posted a note about it to your talk page. Irregardless, the discussion is now pointless and no longer has anything to do with the article. If you like adding odder facts to articles, I strongly suggest that in the future you properly cite them when adding them so other editors will not suspect you are just adding nonsense to an article. AnmaFinotera 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I attended Lawrence University, and there was a "Chocolate-Bunny-Be-Gone-Day in the early-to-mid-90s. As I can see on your page you did not attend Lawrence, so I have no idea why you would remove something that you have no knowledge of. And "several" other edits were not removed; as far as I can tell (although I admit I'm not very fluent in using Wikipedia) the only edit that was removed other than the Bob Ross edit was the "Chocolate-Bunny..." edit, which was removed by you (again, I don't know why -- many college pages list traditions of the college). I don't see any other notes on my talk page except from when I first joined Wikipedia in October 2005. Most of my edits were cleaning up the grammatical errors of other users, so I guess I'm just a bit irritated by your tone. I have no problems with trivia being removed, however, my surprise was at the fact that you initially removed just mine, while leaving a big chunk of trivia.--Drbauman 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your having attended the university and having a memory of that does not qualify as a verifiable source (see WP:Verify). My having never even heard of the school has nothing to do with it. You do not have to have first hand knowledge of the article to work on it. Most people do focus on areas of interest, but that isn't always the case nor does that mean editors should avoid working on other articles. Indeed, not having first hand knowledge is often makes it easier to maintain a neutral point of view on a topic. :) The chocolate bunny was not a tradition that could be verified. I did search for it before removing it, but I could find no source for it and it sounded odd (and rather gross), so I presumed it was vandalism and removed it. If you can find a verifiable third-party source for it beyond your own memory, by all means add it back.

I'm sorry if my tone annoyed you. I was dealing with a ton of vandalism that day, so I may have been overzealous in dealing with yours and used a sharper tone than I normally would. I'm also sorry you feel picked on. If you look at the article's history tab, however, you will see I have removed other trivia type items from this and other articles, including removing the entire "In Popular Culture" stuff that used to be in here. You might also note above that I mentioned the coming removal of the trivia section, so it wasn't anything personal. AnmaFinotera 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation?

Did Bob Ross have any religious affiliation? He mentions God often while painting. 68.116.99.77 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think many people presumed he was a Christian of some style, but as to what denomination he was or how he did in terms of attending service and the like, no info has been found. To be so famous, he seemed to manage to keep quite a bit of his private life private. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If a sourced reference to a denominational affiliation or belief system ever comes up, it might be of some interest. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard somewhere that he was Mormon, but I doubt it's true.F33bs (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If such information is available from a reliable source, that would be a great addition. Some of his films hint at a form of Protestant Christianity, but it would really be nothing more than conjecture. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How Bob is best known

The TV Show section says "The public arguably knows Ross best as the host of the public television series The Joy of Painting" [emphasis mine]. Even though there might not be any way to definitively prove this, or any source to cite to, is there any question that Bob is best know from his TV show? I think this is a fact, and I don't think that the word "arguably" is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocohen2 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it isn't sourced, right now its best to note that it isn't clear, but most likely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Quotes

How are we going to reference Bob's quotes? Should we just remove anything that is not sourced even though we all know it to be true? He always said "beat the devil out of it" Can we insert some sound clips? What are the copyright implications of that?Malachite36 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that sound clips may be our answer as illustrated in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy The commentary text already exists and the clips would be 5 seconds of a 20+ minute show.Malachite36 (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Influence

I would like to start a discussion on the validity of some of the topics - namely, the video game and snowboard sections - that have been removed. (see [2]). In my opinion, these items should be included in the article because they illustrate cultural influence outside of the subject's element. It is a noteworthy aspect of the subject's legacy. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural influence has been discussed and rejected, nor is either really noteworthy. As noted before, the game never happened, nor is a snowboard particularly noteworthy. There is TONS of Bob Ross stuff out there, and it is not Wikipedia's place to catalog them all. The game is also already more appropriately covered in the series article (or was last time I checked), as this is a biography. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I support a "Bob Ross in Popular Culture" section. user:AnmaFinotera asserts that this was discussed and rejected, but there is no evidence of that here. In any case, we will discuss it again (though as is plain from reading this section, no such discussion exists). Proxy User (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realize this section was removed in October 2007, right? Go read the archive. The discussions are there. Nor did Arx Fortis say "lets bring back the whole list" he wanted to put in the snowboard stuff (added by a spammer) and the non-existent video game (covered more appropriately under Joy of Painting) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no evidence here on the talk page to support any kind of discussion that resulted in consensus to remove it. That one editor might feel the removal is correct is not the same as discussion resulting in consensus. Clearly there are several who would like to see the section returned. That the section was removed is irrelevant to the current discussion. Also, the discussion is abou Bob Ross in popular culture, not about Mr. Ross' television show. I nominate the section to be rebuilt. We will discuss it, and reach a consensus base on the current interest to have the section in the article. Thank you! Proxy User (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant to the discussion. Its removal was done with consensus. That is relevant as you are attempting to claim it was just done without any real reason. Nor is interest alone any reason to put in unsourced trivia. People frequently want to put inappropriate content in articles. Just because there are three of them doesn't mean it happens. Wikipedia does have guidelines and policies, even if someone people don't like them. WP:V is a core one, as are WP:RS and WP:NOT. Please point to a single solitary reliable source that is about Bob Ross himself as a cultural icon apart from his television series. The onus is on those who want to include such information to prove it. Also, can you point me to a single FA level biography article that has such a section? Let's look at some other famous folks: Douglas Adams - none, Phil Collins - nope, Bob Dylan - nada, Michael Jackson - still nope. As a side note, the Biography project has been queried as to the appropriateness of such sections. As I feel some WP:CANVASSing has occurred, I have also asked an administrator to look into this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of a "in popular culture" or similar section, and I welcome an administrator opinion on the matter. Either there should be one here, for this individual, and if not, I have to ask why other individuals have such sections. Because many, many do, and it will call for widespread edits throughout the entire Wikipedia if judgment falls to the latter. --Gero (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and just because bad articles have them does not mean it should be repeated. Many ARE removed when articles undergo improvement efforts. Again, can you point to a high quality biography article that has such a section? And can you provide the necessary reliable sources for this proposed section (and no, just citing episodes does not count, as has been upheld very recently as being WP:OR).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, yes, there was IN THE PAST a discussion that might have reached a "consensous". But things change. A consensus IN THE PAST does not prevent revisiting the question. Clearly there is interest in having the section.

Also, you point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then in the exact same paragraph talk about something being upheld for some other article being relevant to this one, this is contradictory. Now, as to what is a valid reference, references for a Popular Culture section need not meet any more stringent requirements than any other reference. If a reference is good enough for other sections in the article, than they are good enough for Popular Culture section.

One more thing: consensous does not require 100% agreement. This being so, we will soon reach such consensous for a section called Bob Ross in Popular Culture. This being so, let us now discuss what content will go in that soon to be created section.Proxy User (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS refers to bad content, not high quality content that fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Featured Articles are ones that one looks to for guidance and as examples of what an article should be. And sorry, but there is "soon we will reach consensus, so lets get started" yet. One canvassed remark agreeing with you is not consensus. Considering your convassing activities, outside opinions are fully required. Also, as noted, there is consensus not to have this content - not in the past but EXISTING consensus in that the section has remained gone for 15 months. This is straight from an administrator, so you must now establish REAL consensus, not canvassing to try to get your way, but actual discussion showing how your desired section will meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and will add to the quality of the article. Please find some other reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An 'in popular culture' or 'trivia' section is not going to happen. The fact that Family Guy made fun of Ross is irrelevant to a Bob Ross biography, and does not increase an understanding of the subject. I agree with everything that AnmaFinotera has so far argued, and she has already cited all of the relevant policies and guidelines to support this argument, so I need not repeat them here. Disparaging other editors like this will most certainly not help your cause either. Sarilox (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera and Sarilox here. While there might not have been direct article consensus to remove it, it was removed with Wikipedia-wide support - see Wikipedia:Trivia sections for more. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"The fact that Family Guy made fun of Ross is irrelevant to a Bob Ross biography, and does not increase an understanding of the subject."

It's relevant because a writer for Family Guy thought it was relevant to use a Bob Ross reference in that particular episode. Family Guy is part of pop culture & the show influences culture. And the consensus is that Bob Ross, according to Wikipedia rules and regulations isn't? Either Wikipedia's standards are too high or the people who are sticking by that there shouldn't be a trivia or pop culture section aren't being open-minded to consider it.

Rayghost (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevent, who cares if he was mentioned on Family Guy? Why do the Family Guy and The Simpsons have to be crammed into EVERY article on Wikipedia? Seems clear this has been agreed upon to be removed so I'm removing it 70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Tim

Death?

Can someone please post hos Ross died? This article seems very incomplete without it. --Schmendrick (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the very first line: lymphoma. - 83.171.169.213 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing back the Popular Culture/Trivia sections

I think it would be great to have either one of both of the sections back. The fact that Bob Ross has been referenced or influenced many areas of popular culture makes him very interesting. I've just watched a episode of the cartoon, The Boondocks. The episode featured an art instructor who by all rights is Bob Ross-incarnate. The character's background is similar as far as having a military background (the character was a Gulf War veteran). And sicne the cartoon is an African-American cartoon, it exposes Bob Ross to a group of people who may have not known about Bob Ross. So, this is significnt and I believe this needs to be reviewed again. maybe the artcile can be protect more to keep vanadlism down. Rayghost (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. None of it was properly unsourced and it is not appropriate content in a biography. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Really. Not appropriate content for a biography? The man IS a pop culture icon. Shatner has a section describing his influence in popular culture. It's relevant and interesting information - where else might it be put? Books, movies, and other public figures have sections describing their respective impacts on popular culture. Why not Bob Ross? It would be a simple provide cited examples of pop culture references to him. I think you'll need to either (a)back off your scrutiny of this page, or (b) be a little more cavalier and put a stop to all those other interesting pages with pop culture references. If you were to concede to the former, it might be regarded as a "happy accident", but presently its just a mistake.Liquid entropy (talk)

Actually, no, providing cited examples has proved extremely difficult. As you might notice, its been nearly impossible to cite even the basic details of his life. As for the Shatner article, that section is hideous and I can't believe you actually think something like that would improve this article. Notice its also littered with citations needed -- and he is a living man. Bob Ross was someone I grew up who passed away before the internet really existed. Finding sources for such stuff isn't going to happen (and no, you can't just source the episode because that's just OR). And no, I won't back off the scrutiny on this page as it is constantly vandalized and worthless, trivial information and outright BS is constantly being added. And no, I won't concede the former, it has no place here, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how referencing a "Boondocks" episode (which I've seen) with a character who's obviously a caricature/parody of Bob Ross, is original research. If I said the You Bet Your Life duck was an obvious caricature of Groucho Marx, would that be original research? If I said that "A Portrait of P D Q Bach" was a malicious parody of Copland's "A Lincoln Portrait" (which it plainly is), would that be original research? Though I disagree, I understand the desire to keep cultural and pop-cultural references out of biographies altogether. But when stating the obvious is considered "original research", something is very wrong. I also object to limiting sources to those available only on the Web. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I second, or rather third getting a Popular Culture/Trivia Section in here. With his unique look and attitude, Bob Ross has had a large influence on popular culture, and whether or not completely solid sources can be found (can any source online actually be called Solid? I don't think so), it should be noted. --Gero (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Such content is on the show The Joy of Painting. Biographies do not get such stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really trying to understand why that there shouldn't be the section for Bob Ross. Whether we agree or not, Bob Ross is in popular culture. While some of us may care or not, there are people out there that consider Bob Ross part of popular culture.

Rayghost (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

MTV spot

Not sure if its worthy of inclusion but in its better days, MTV had a bumper featuring Bob Ross. This is noted on IMDB. It was basically several seconds of Bob teaching at the easel and then, having painted an MTV logo with a scenic background, closing with something to the effect of "MTV: it's all happy little trees". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.220.6.139 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tag

I added that tag because of the source. I was under the impression that Ross graduated from a high school in Orlando, not Pennsylvania. In addition, the reference listed links to a Facebook page, which in turn contains a complete copy/paste of the article, making it self-referential and utterly unverifiable. elektrikSHOOS 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency

If Ross had been a medical-records officer, would he have really been in a position where he had to yell at people or give them a bad time? It sounds odd, especially for someone who seemed congenitally laid-back. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Subjectivity

I have nothing against Bob Ross, but does this paragraph really match Wikipedia's standards on neutrality and objectivity?

Ross is often looked at as being the most influential artist of the 20th century. He has been cleverly called "the Michelangelo of our time" by his peers, and experts agree. Bob Ross was also a generous and caring man. He chose to help others by teaching instead of selfishly making a name for himself. This led him to rightfully being dubbed "the Mother Theresa of artists". It is overwhelmingly agreed throughout the art community that Bob Ross ranks among the greatest artists of all time and has left an impression on all people, one that will never fade.[12][13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.25.98 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

88.153.25.98 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How long did the show run?

The article says the show ran from 1983 to 1994. But it also says that Bob Ross died at the conclusion of the 31st season. Is 31st season an error? Or is there some other explanation? 71.241.227.109 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I was just wondering that. Did they do 2 seasons per year? --70.89.189.78 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The show ran 4 seasons per year, AFAIK, but you're right, it should be sourced. I'm going to dig through the Internet and see if I can find a source that supports this. Also, it says 31 seasons on The Joy of Painting, so you may also want to run it past the folks there to see if you can get help for this. elektrikSHOOS 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How long did the show run?

The article says the show ran from 1983 to 1994. But it also says that Bob Ross died at the conclusion of the 31st season. Is 31st season an error? Or is there some other explanation? 71.241.227.109 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I was just wondering that. Did they do 2 seasons per year? --70.89.189.78 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The show ran 4 seasons per year, AFAIK, but you're right, it should be sourced. I'm going to dig through the Internet and see if I can find a source that supports this. Also, it says 31 seasons on The Joy of Painting, so you may also want to run it past the folks there to see if you can get help for this. elektrikSHOOS 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

In this case, the web pages cited are the "critical response". They are not references to the "critical response". 66.66.76.187 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is still unclear, regardless of what it's in regards to. There is only one source for the entire section, and it is to, like I said, a blog, which really isn't reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Especially in cases of criticism in biographies, it's best to err on the side of caution to maintain a neutral point of view and keep the article verifiable. I'd look over WP:CRITICISM if I were you to get an idea of what Wikipedia's stance on this is. elektrikSHOOS 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the unsourced statements after your link is used violate Wikipedia's standards on original research as they are not substantiated by a reliable source. elektrikSHOOS 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

These critics seems to just be average joes with no documented expertise of their own. Their opinions are as valid as the next man's but that's the point: Without being professional artists or art critics, why should we listen to them? I think they're mostly right, but even so. If Robert Hughes had made the same points as these two sources they'd be worth noting. 174.91.0.164 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the painting section

The last paragraph in the painting section doesn't quite appear to match the sources given. I took a look trying to verify the information and for my mind it takes quite a bit of reading between the lines to get "overly simplistic, without artistic merit, and monotonous" out of the sources mentioned. Perhaps I'm just missing something (and if I am please by all means point out what), but from what I saw the sources were criticizing his painting style as stolen/copied (the NY Times one) and inspiring dependence on Bob Ross and a lack of originality (the emptyeasel.com one). For this reason, I am tagging the paragraph with the {{dubious}} and {{Failed verification}} templates. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How many of the pages of the NYT cite did you read? There are 4 pages, only half of one page (the last, the one the cite opens at) notes the case of the technique (wet on wet) being borrowed from his mentor, another page and a half about his background and television show, and a page where "establishment" artists and critics talk about the lack of technical merit and artistic development in his work. The blog piece seems to reflect much of the NYT article, that adherents of the Bob Ross method are only capable of generic facsimiles of Bob Ross paintings and evidence no artistry. Perhaps the term monotonous is incorrect, but that is a question of better describing the criticism and not for removing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember whether or not I saw the first three pages; it is entirely possible that I missed them since the reference opens on the fourth page. Either way, it seems to match much closer to what I saw at first now that it has been corrected...the first sentence being reworded makes it to where I can see how that source supports it and I see no problems with the NY Times source now. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC on "Critical Response" section

Over the past several months, an anonymous IP hopper has been adding (and readding) a "Critical Response" section to this biography, which can be seen here. I have objected to the section due to the quality of the sources and the original research quality to the remainder of the text, but since we're the only two people who've been arguing about it, I feel an outside opinion of some sort of necessary. I can understand a need for some sort of criticism/response section, especially given the positive tone of the bio in general, but in this form I feel it's detrimental. Anywho, this is why I opened the RfC, so please, I want outside feedback on this. elektrikSHOOS 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say there's no problem with a Critical Response section, but we would need to see about finding some sources that analyze him from a critical prespective. The sources used in the diff are not appropriate, one of them appears to be a version of this article, and the site is run by volunteers. The other is a personal web site, see the about tab. I would not object to use of this as a source in conjunction with other sources for this and similar information, but I do not think it is enough to justify the section by itself. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be pointed out that the section specified in the diff is the exact section, pretty much copied and pasted repeatedly, that the IP hopper has been trying to add. While, again, I'm not against a critical response section - indeed, most articles probably should have some form of criticism integrated to maintain a neutral point of view - it's that section specifically that I'm concerned about, due to the sources given.

Criticism of the "Bob Ross method" exists, and probably from reliable, authoritative voices too. It just can't come from the web pages given here. elektrikSHOOS 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would note that I have been reverting to include the criticism section over the couple of years I have had this article on my watchlist - as well as reverting vandalism, etc. Most times the section is removed there is no rationale provided; it looks like the editor simply does not want criticism in the article. I think it encyclopedic to contain learned criticism regarding the limitations of both the techniques and the teaching methodology, but sourced to the "experts" noted in the sources currently used, while recognizing the subjects intention was not to produce great art or artists but to allow people to enjoy the creation of a generic style of pictures. Removal of the criticism section while researching good RS is fine, but doing so without intending to replace with sourced content possibly violates WP:UNDUE considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree fully with your position, LessHeard vanU. I agree that controversy sections are fine as long as they're reliably sourced, I don't consider that removing unsourced or poorly sourced material violates WP:UNDUE. I'd advocate perhaps the opposite approach to what you proposed - leave the section in the article for now, but tag it appropriately (there's a tag for questionable sources, isn't there?) and if suitable reliable sources haven't been found in a month, then remove the section. Doing it this way publicises the issue and encourages passers-by to try to fix it, gives everyone involved time to try to fix it, and allows for the removal of the material in the event that it can't be fixed in a reasonable time frame. Editors can always re-add a controversy section in future once reliable sources are found. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS prefers that criticism be blended in with the article rather than having a special section. However if the subject has been the focus of a lot of controversy and its a major component of his life than a special section may be appropriate. However if such a section were to be created it would be more neutral to give it a title such as "Reception" and include both praise and criticism. As for the content of that section it should be well sourced and it is not a place for Origninal Research. On the other hand, well sourced and neutrally worded text should not be removed or excluded from the article without discussion and consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A separate section is out of line but if the criticism of his painting method is notable enough, a neutral sentence or so in the section dealing with the method, and properly cited and attributed - According to art critic Blah from the Art Institute of Blech, the Boss Ross method... would work well. Jnast1 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Air Force Rank?

Should we dig it up and post it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 05:20, July 17, 2010

I think if the rank was one of importance or somehow contributed to the foundation of his painting, my answer would be yes. I like the idea of honoring Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.5.69 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is about 'Bob Ross', not 'Bob Ross but only while he was a painter'. His rank was part of his life, and is valid info. And at least two people are curious: the original questioner and me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.228.18 (talk) 21:11, July 8, 2011

Ross stole from Bill Alexander

Also, I realize this may seem touchy, but I am certainly old enough to recall all this: Master Bill Alexander pioneered this technique, though lots of artists have used similar ways of painting.

It should be noted that Bob Ross basically stole Alexander's format, technique and TV presentation. Everything from the subject matter to the equipment - Ross even cleaned and dried his brushes exactly as Alexander had taught since BEFORE World War II. I made a sturdy screen bottom for a coffee can for brush cleaning - just as Alexander, not Ross, invented.

Alexander was on TV teaching this stuff, perhaps contemporaneously with Ross - but Ross, as I said, stole everything from Alexander. Yes, STOLE it. The only true difference is Bob Ross had a Plexiglas palette (which shape was specially designed by Alexander) - and he could never paint anywhere near as beautifully as Alexander did.

Can we discuss that instead of having stupid things about Ross in the Air Force?76.195.85.160 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy for all article content is verifiability, not truth. If this were true, one would have to find a citation—specifically one which is acceptable by our guide for acceptable sources—to include it in the article. elektrikSHOOS 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur, claims about the subject have no relevance on Wikipedia unless the are reliably sourced WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I concede your point on this matter. There is no known source (other than my very clear memory) and I know memory falls into personal research or original research. But this article still needs work ....76.195.81.212 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a source -- the New York Times -- and the reference has now been added. Let's see how long before someone takes it down! 198.36.194.3 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's ok, although we should rework some of the language. So long as we make clear that this claim was made by Alexander, it's a good source. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Did Bob Ross make money off this "coffee can theft"? If not, it's not theft, it's just "inspiration". So you can invent using a Coffee can? Yeah sure and the Beatles stole from Elvis and Jerry Lee. I'm sure someone used a coffee can before. I like Bob Ross and always knew he figured all this stuff out from others. That's how the world works. Ford didn't invent the wheel or the car. What a phony! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.97.225 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Bob Ross made money! And I was not only talking about a coffee can! I was referring to the FACT that Bob Ross often said on his show that he invented things that Bill Alexander did first. And Ross was a student of his.

So when Alexander - and Ross around the same time - were on TV, it seemed Ross was somehow anointed to succeed Alexander. That was not the case as far as anyone knows, but my own beef was always the fact that Ross did not mention Alexander.

The Alexander heirs have their own site, products etc. and I see that Alexander is credited as the INVENTOR of not only the can-screen but also the palette knife, the Magic White, the black gesso, the Magic Clear, and the technique itself as a whole.

Alexander encouraged people to use all this as a starting point and to expand their artistic training through work. Ross only taught copying.

I didn't see the "NY Times" article. I hope it clears up some confusion.

I just read the Times article and as usual I think it has been mis-used as a reference here. See my new section below and then reconsider whether or not Ross stole the entire painting technique. It isn't that we should present Ross as a thief; just that you are leaving out a very hot issue and no one will take this article seriously without a mention of it. Alexander deserves this much at least.75.21.149.151 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you say: "So long as we make clear that this claim was made by Alexander [...]" YES, of course it has to be made clear, that is why I say put the whole par. in the article. Alexander stated this - who else needs to state it? Even if only as a TV viewer, and as a student of Alexander's, I was there and saw that Ross stole the whole thing, then tried to outrun Alexander on TV. Ross made millions, as you see in the "Times" article. Alexander faded away and everyone has forgotten him.

You keep this article unfair if you do not emphasize that controversy. Ross should be shown in a clear, honest light and not just the light of sainthood.75.21.149.151 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm new, this is my first edit, ever. Please be kind. I feel that I have important info to contribute. Maybe somebody can assist me in getting this info out better (Maybe on the Article). Bob Ross personally dedicated his show "The Joy of Painting" to William "Bill" Alexander in his opening words of Season 02 - Episode 01 - "Meadow Lake". I can't find the video or transcription online. However, I have the episode and have transcribed it exactly word-for-word myself. After the opening theme, Bob starts: "Hello, I'm Bob Ross, and for the next 13 weeks, I'll be your Host, as we experience The Joy of Painting. This is a fantastic method of painting, where we're using Wet-On-Wet Technique, and before I go too far into the show, I'd like to take a few minutes and make a dedication: I would like to dedicate this show to my Beloved Friend and Teacher, whom we've all watched and loved for many years on Public Television- Bill Alexander. And years ago Bill taught me this fantastic technique, and I feel as though he gave me a Precious Gift, and I'd like to share that Gift with you." 70.173.129.19 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would point you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is the policy that states that all content we write must be able to be referenced to a good, third party, reliable source. If an independent reference can be found for these comments by Mr Ross regarding Mr Alexander then they may well be included. Unfortunately, a personal transcription or even a link to the episode itself does not have the appropriate degree of impartial but learned commentary that Wikipedia requires. Hopefully your search for a good source may yet bear fruit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You, LessHeard vanU. What If I uploaded just the dedication part of the episode to youtube? Is a link to the youtube clip no-good as a reference? I noticed one of the references on the article page just gives the episode title so I assumed that worked?70.173.129.19 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not - a copy of the transmission does not have the authoritive third party commentary that WP:V requires. We need to show where an independent party has noted Mr Ross' comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't we allow citing a television episode as a source for what occurred in that episode? I know it comes up in fictional biographies more often but surely it works as a viable source for the fact that Bob said what he said. GRAPPLE X 23:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me LessHeard but you're all I've got. I really have no idea what I'm doing. Sounds like a good-source is impossible. It's really a shame. I guess my only option could be, put it on youtube and hope a 3rd party writes about it?70.173.129.19 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you continue editing Wikipedia (and why not?) then you are likely to pick up how things work. In due course, also, a reliable source for the comments made on this episode may also be found and then the information placed in the article. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is no issue in having to wait until the right reference turns up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth (not much), I figure there may be people in here interested/curious about this gem. I offer this to those whom without hesitation say that Mr. Ross never mentioned Mr. Alexander on his show, and to emphasize that Mr. Ross (in his own words) believed he was "given a gift" rather than "stole a technique". I fully understand that this is NOT a good, third party, reliable source, and that this discussion is NOT a forum for sharing youtube video links. However, in a discussion section titled: "Ross stole from Bill Alexander", I believe that these words of Mr. Ross should be considered. Thank You. On youtube: "Bob Ross Dedicates His Show To Bill Alexander" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOiDGH80j3M 70.173.129.19 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All this talk about William Alexander had me searching for his Wikipedia article, out of genuine curiosity - but there is none. This begs the question: why haven't you folks, that are so deeply concerned about him, created an article that gives him his proper due, instead of complaining about what contributors to this article have (or haven't) done for him? PScooter63 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how about you check into histories here. You'll see someone tried creating a William Alexander page then it was pulled. No explanations, yet here is the huge and glorious Bob Ross page. The man was a thief.75.21.155.189 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bill Alexander-Bob Ross Controversy

"In fact, the rivalry between Mr. Ross and his former mentor, William Alexander, is bitter. Mr. Alexander, 76, a Bavarian-born painter who has his own painting show on a public television station in Orange County, Calif., a paint supply business and a line of books and videos, spoke of his former protégé in the tones Thomas Couture might have used to describe the young pupil who outstripped him, Edouard Manet. "He betrayed me," he said in his strong German accent. "I invented 'wet on wet.' I trained him and he is copying me -- what bothers me is not just that he betrayed me, but that he thinks he can do it better." "

From: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/arts/television-bob-ross-the-frugal-gourmet-of-painting.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm

SOURCE: "The New York Times",

TELEVISION section: "Bob Ross, the Frugal Gourmet of Painting", By ALESSANDRA STANLEY, December 22, 1991

and this tells us what is lacking in the article on Bob Ross. Even moreso because it simply ends there, and now both men are deceased. No one ever speaks of Bill Alexander. Yet as I said before, I learned from Alexander and I can tell you: Ross could not hold a candle to Alexander. If you don't believe me, look it up. Alexander's paintings were breathtaking.

I'm so glad there's a citation about this, but it isn't clear enough from the article's ref. - and I think this par. I quoted above should be quoted in the article, the Ross-Alexander controversy. It is real, and Ross made an empire when Alexander basically faded away! Is that like someone reaching similar inspiration, or is it as Alexander himself complained ... THEFT?75.21.149.151 (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And I say again here: You keep this article unfair if you do not emphasize that controversy. Ross should be shown in a clear, honest light and not just the light of sainthood.75.21.149.151 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability; if there are a few good Wikipedia:Reliable sources then that aspect may be included. One source does not establish the Wikipedia:Notability of the matter. This is the only criteria by which material may be included or excluded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself - either that or contradicting the Wikipedia standard. "The New York Times" seems sufficient to make mention of the Alexander-Ross controversy. You seem to want some sort of book or major magazine article citations. One citation is enough, and it makes it notable that Alexander was quoted directly in the Times.75.21.106.208 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.alexanderart.com/ - visit this site. It may be one reliable source because it does not mention Ross or controversies of any kind. Yet there is evidence of Alexander paintings and the "Ross" style, in its glorious originality, being done by Alexander in the 1970s.75.21.106.208 (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that this is the Bob Ross article, and all we have is one source for one instance of Alexander criticising Ross for not crediting him with the invention of wet on wet technique - which is countered by another editor who notes that an episode of the Joy of Painting does include Ross acknowledging his debt. While it may be true that Mr Alexander believes Ross did not pay appropriate respect to his teaching him the technique, per the NYT cite, the fact that there is only this one source indicates that this is not a major aspect of Mr Ross' notability (unlike the criticism from various sources regarding the technique not allowing for true representation of subjects, or for further development of a trainee artist.) One source does not provide the WP:Due weight to include this verifiable matter, within the overall context of the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that the info should excluded because there is only one RS. I would say that it should receive appropriate weight and/or it should be attributed in the text to the single source that made the statement.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Less Heard, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ross' acknowledgement of Alexander does NOT undo Ross' false claims of inventing things.

You say that "all we have is one source for one instance of Alexander criticising Ross for not crediting him with the invention of wet on wet technique ... " That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. OF COURSE we have only the one source, and I repeat my claim that you do not know Wikipedia guidelines at all. You don't know what you're talking about here.

THAT ONE SOURCE IS SUFFICIENT for the purpose and information it would back up: this article is not a book about Ross!75.21.155.189 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The NY Times is a reputable source and shouldn't be repressed unless their are some special circumstances that I am unaware of. And please don't invoke WP:NOTABLIITY as "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article". Would someone like to specify exactly what it is from the NY Times article that they would like to include in this BLP? There are no grounds to disregard the NY Times article as a source but there may be grounds for not using some aspect of the article because of some special circumstances. But I can't form an opinion until some specific content is suggested. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I would add that Alexander did not invent wet on wet as he claimed in the NYT article. I have no objections to a sentence or two on this, but we can't do much with the sources other than say that Ross credited Alexander but Alexander felt betrayed by his former pupil. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a modest mention of Alexander and the wet on wet technique issue, is appropriate. The NYT is a reputable source and the subject is given considerable mention in the NYT article; its not just an off handed comment. So even though this is just one source, it seems a neutrally worded sentence on this could be included in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your support for the inclusion of just a sentence on the matter is greatly appreciated. The public is going to read about Bob Ross here, the public needs to know some history, even if it is reduced to a sentence. Thanks for also reducing Less Heard's dumb argument to one nonsensical sentence!

Incidentally, I think I may have, in the past, written something in the article about this Alexander Tiff; it should still be there and I do not think more should be made of it since it is, as you say, a well documented fact.

As an incidental, I'd like you to know that there are those in the Alexander camp, including his heirs, who have not forgotten Bob Ross' treachery toward Alexander. I don't speak for them. I only know what I have read on the Alexander Magic of Oil Painting website that is still functional, and has been selling Alexander's patented painting supplies since the early 1980s.76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Was it you that said "If there is an argument about Ross stealing from Alexander, it was started by Alexander and I believe it because I was there" on my talk page, and if so, would you clarify the nature of your relationships with both Ross and Alexander? Since you are editing as an IP instead of using an account, it is difficult for us to know whether you and 76.195.85.222 or other ips are the same person or not. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation for reading the NYT article

This has to to with improving the article... how? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Everyone should read it, no, not read, feel it. Enjoy the "no true scotsman" using, condescending, arrogant and vitriol-vomiting "real artists" that hide Bob Ross's products to not "offend the regulars". It is a delicious amount of butt hurt "artists". Only the last few paragraphs are about the controversy, the rest is pure comedy so stereotypical that even the worst Hollywood script writer couldn't come up with it. 217.225.125.176 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm, how about you read it and then lend some helpful input here. Or are you another disinformation provider?75.21.155.189 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I closed the section because talk page discussions should be focused on improving the article. If you have an actual objection I will remove the template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, practice what you preach! What have you contributed to this lately?!76.195.85.222 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Painting section OBJECTION!

From the Painting section: "Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, has claimed that he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."

This does not sound right. Alexander "claimed he taught" Ross? Ross himself acknowledged twice that Alexander taught him. Is this the final expression of that fact for the article?

I object to that sentence. It should state that Bill Alexander taught Ross the method. Ross acknowledged this, and thanked Alexander (on the air) for being his teacher. The rest of it mentioning Alexander's feelings of betrayal is OK as-is.

But I see that editing is out of the question. Who blocked the article from editing? Or am I missing something as usual? 76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is not "blocked" in any way; it hasn't been protected since April May, and even then it could still be edited under the Pending Changes trial. (Here's the log.) However, Wikipedia's policy on all article content is verifiability, not truth. To make this edit you would need a source describing it. As of right now sources used support the information as stated in the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I have amended the sentence per WP:CLAIM to read as follows (which I think is fair representation of the source):
    • • "According to Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and Ross has "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I apologize for my confusion about editing - it often happens when I go to an article I do NOT see the "edit" option where it ought to be. That was the case here, but I know as inexperienced as I am I'm probably missing something.

2. I concur with the sentence as phrased and proposed here by Keithbob. An excellent revision. I don't want to try my hand at torturing the grammar any further.

3. Sorry, Elektric Shoos, but I am getting a bit tired of this "it's not truth we want, it's verifiability". I can verify for you the existence of the Loch Ness monster, if I go about it the way you keep proposing ... but guess what ... ?!

So you're using that over and over as an electric fly swatter and it's unscholarly, tiresome, juvenile. What you and Wikipedia want to say is verifiable AND RELIABLE sources are needed, or else if it's a silly claim we still need sources to show that claim has been made ... yes, I get it.

All I ask is you stop throwing that out there when it has Nothing to do with the discussion at hand. There - now, what does all your verifiability talk have to do with Alexander's famous statement about Ross? It's cited, it's real, you can read and many of you here have read it.

In short, get off my back with that crap.76.195.85.222 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I will concede the point above; I wasn't aware of WP:CLAIM and I think KeithBob has rephrased the passage excellently. However, wanting you to verify information you put in the article isn't in any way whining. It's site policy. I apologize if this doesn't match with your vision for the page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shoos for a very measured response to a rather intense comment from IP76. WP has strong policies on civility. Without it we can't progress, so let's all keep our heads and work together to improve the article. Things may not always go the way we want them to but we have to concede to WP policy and group consensus. Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion and helping to improve the article. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am aware of my blunt frankness with ideas and thoughts. I did not mean to insult anybody directly or begin a fight. I hope the remarks to that effect were not too concentrated on me.

My effort has always been merely to make the article as accurate as possible without arguing OBVIOUS sources for facts.75.21.159.173 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Some help needed, and an additional objection

To the "Painting" section I have added: "An interesting aspect of Ross' shows, however, were the moments during which Ross discussed his invention of materials and ideas that were clearly Alexander's inventions."

Can someone please assist me with the connexion of that statement to the NY Times ref.? I know it is corroborated there somewhere - I just don't know how to reference that point.

New objection: I do not think it is enough or verifiable to have the following in the same sec.: 'However, Ross never claimed to be the creator of the technique. In fact, in season 2, episode 1 of "The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross", he dedicates his show to William Alexander, explaining that "years ago, Bill taught me this fantastic [wet-on-wet] technique, and I feel as though he gave me a precious gift, and I'd like to share that gift with you [the viewer]".'

I mean, what, we are just supposed to either take the editor's word for it or go hunting for that episode? Apply the same rule here as you did with me. There is no reference and thus no actual verifiability for this remark by Ross except a mention of the show, and that just seems like a forced opinion and is certainly, as it stands now, in the realm of personal research. Or did one of you others get a recording of that episode and hear it for yourselves? If so, then make that a new reference. It would be cool to have that in there to balance out the sourness of the Alexander controversy.

Remember, you all here are the rule-conscious people! So follow the rules.75.21.159.173 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a well formed reference, but it is a reference. You know what you're looking for, so it is verifiable (which is the requirement) even if it is not yet verified. As for "An interesting aspect of Ross' shows, however, were the moments during which Ross discussed his invention of materials and ideas that were clearly Alexander's inventions", I don't recall that being in the NYT article. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, Nujinn, I was worried I was in error about that. In fact I find myself in the other editor's same quagmire - I know I've seen and heard Ross claim these inventions as his own, over and over. Inventions that Alexander first invented.

As to your explanation of the verifiability, I'm not sure I follow you. Could you clarify? Or are you just trying to say now no one can write a word unless it is a direct quote or paraphrase?75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. WP:V requires that information articles be verifiable. If an editor adds a statement that Ross said X, but without providing a source, that statement can be challenged and removed if a source is not provided. But if a source is provided, say Season 2 episode 1, for that assertion, that's a source and it can be verified. So far, I have not been able to verify it, but there's no rule that says that everyone has to be able to verify a source, just that it be verifiable. Think of books in libraries, I may have access to books that you do have have access to, so I can provide a source, and you may not be able to verify it, but presumably others can. The assertion in this case can be verified, it just requires getting a hold of the DVD or other recording. Now, if you have heard Ross claim these inventions as his own, and can provide a source, we can add that as well, and document that he said different things at different times. I hope that's clear, let me know if it is not. Now we do also have to be careful, the DVD's or recordings of the show are self published sources for Ross, so we can use them to say that he said X, but not that X is true. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As I write this, KCTS is showing a documentary on Bob Ross. The episode moment in which he thanks Bill Alexander for teaching him wet-on-wet is shown. This documentary (which also shows Alexander "handing off the brush") is available on home video. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More fairness and a bit about Bill Alexander

I want to add to this about Ross thanking Alexander: it does not belong until we have an air date and not just his exact quote. That is a double standard with the rules here.

Secondly, about Ross taking credit for Alexander's inventions: I have the main Alexander site which is kept up by his heirs. It speaks of his inventions, his early years and his dreams.75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

an update: I apologize for not having consulted the references. I see the citation is there, for Ross' statement, and that is good enough.75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think policy requires air dates, although they would be nice to have, I added what I could find about that episode to help others find a copy. In regard to the web sites about Alexander, they are fine for sourcing that Alexander or his heirs claims that he did X or Y, but nothing controversial. We have the NYT article that says he claimed to have invented wet on wet, so I'm not sure we need that site, but I have no objection really to including it, so long as we don't let the section get too big and violate undue. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I do not want this getting out of hand.

Ross, who I watch all the time to this day, often blurts out that he invented the knife, he invented the "Magic" paints, he invented the easel - all of which Alexander invented.

I'm still struggling to find evidence that Alexander invented the black gesso, since Ross bragged most often about inventing that. There's no way I can get the same citation strength for all that, but I know Ross said those things and they continue to be televised.

If something appropriate can be found on Alexander's site, it should be quotable and cited without trouble. What I also want to know is why no one pursued a good Bill Alexander page, which I know existed at one time?75.21.159.66 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a public thanks to Nujinn for help and illumination in the matters I have raised. I agree with Nujinn's positions - they are good, worthy concretisms. The article will always need betterment until it can realy be bettered no more, and additional citations are probably out of the question by this point in time, so I suggest we leave it as-is, only removing uncited/unverifiable little extras.75.21.105.113 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that in the article Wet-on-wet it says:"Wet-on-wet painting goes right back to the origins of oil painting, and was used by several of the best Early Netherlandish painters in parts of their pictures, such as Jan van Eyck in the Arnolfini portrait, and Rogier van der Weyden.[1]" so neither Alexander nor Ross can have invented the technique. As for the rest of this discussion, I have watched around 400 of Bob Ross' painting lessons and I can't remember him saying he invented any of the techniques he used. This controversy is probably a lot smaller than any news journalist or this wikipedia article makes it into. I think we should reduce our mentioning of this controversy to a minimum, if we need to mention it at all.Roger491127 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note how this "controversy" is handled in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alexander_(artist), it says:

"Rivalry with Ross

At the beginning of The Joy of Painting's second season in 1984, Ross dedicated the show to Alexander and Alexander filmed a promo for his former student: "I hand off my mighty brush to a mighty man, and that is Bob Ross."[2][5] In 1987 someone from Alexander Art told Ross that they couldn't keep up with the demand generated by the The Joy of Painting and suggested that Ross start his own line of art supplies.[2] As Bob Ross Incorporated grew into a $15 million a year business Alexander told the New York Times that he felt "betrayed" by his one-time student. [6]"

I think we should copy this section in this article too, because the issue has been handled in a better way in that article.Roger491127 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Years, series, or seasons?

"In early 1994, Ross cancelled The Joy of Painting after its 11th season to continue battling the disease."

The term "season" seems vague here. The show ran for 11 years, but those years encompassed a total of 31 series (as Ross referred to them at the beginning and end of each series). Wikipedia's page on the show references "31 seasons". This is supported by the official Bob Ross site's merchandise page.

I propose the text be changed to either "11 years" or "31 series". "31 seasons" might give the impression the show ran for 31 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.189.34 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A season is a broadcast season, which is the same thing as a series. They call them series in the UK and seasons in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndawg3 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That text has been changed numerous times from 31 to 11 by several IPs for no discernable reason. The show ran for 31 seasons, but for 11 years (multiple seasons ran per year). Also, in regards to above, "series" and "seasons" refer to the same thing, and because the rest of the article uses US English we should continue to use "seasons" here for consistency.

All of that said, 31 seasons does seem to be causing quite a bit of confusion in regards to the show's length. I've boldly changed it to say "11 years." elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, someone else actually did something that also adequately addresses it, so there's nothing else to do here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clowns?

Is this a joke?

>At age 17, he was raped by a gang of flamboyant clowns who rode him like a pony over the horizon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.232.180 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Need to lock this page today

With Bob Ross being celebrated by Google today, we need to lock this page. How do we accomplish this? --12:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoderj (talk • contribs)

Add Google doodle

Since this page is locked for a couple days, need to download the image from google and attach it to the article. https://www.google.com/logos/2012/bob_ross12-hp.jpg --TRiPgod (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't add that doodle, as it is a copyrighted image and would fail our non-free content criteria on this page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no PBS in Canada

The introduction implies that PBS has stations in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.169.177 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

In Popular Culture

Bob Ross was parodied in "Fifteen Minutes of Shame", a Family Guy Episode, in which he threatens to cut viewers who dare tell anyone where he has painted a secret bush. Radish bliss (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: "In popular culture" sections should only contain notable instances of the subject being mentioned and their significance on pop culture as a whole, and not simply be an exhaustive list. This does not add to it. In addition, you have not cited a reliable source that can be used to verify this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: In that case, why was `The Boondocks` added as a notable instance? Family Guy is also, if not more so, popular than The Boondocks. We're talking about Bob Ross, so, I highly doubt this list will contain more than 5 items on it before it is exhausted. Your reasoning is not consistent with what has already been included. Swivelgames (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources: Wikia's Quotes Section (featuring Bob Ross' parody first) [3], YouTube Video featuring Bob Ross' parody [4], Ahsan Haque's Review (IGN) ("[who rated] the episode a 9.9/10, [and] called the episode an 'instant classic' and 'one of the funniest and most creatively constructed episodes of Family Guy'", and also noted the Bob Ross parody) [5], TV Rage's Summary (apparently TVRage is not a valid source) Swivelgames (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Boondocks bit was removed as well, for the same reason. You're welcome to re-add both if you want as long as they're sourced, but I'd recommend you read this essay first. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the consistency. Swivelgames (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did want to note, however (as I was not necessarily petitioning for the addition of the Family Guy reference previously, but more of a central argument for some consistency), the Family Guy reference does have some weight to it. For future reference or argument, the IPC essay says that in order for a pop-culture reference to be notable it has to pass at least one of the questions, preferably more. That being said, Family Guy's Bob Ross reference certainly passed Question 2, most notably with the IGN review but also the large amount of video uploads on to YouTube containing the reference. Question 1 would be impossible, as the subject passed in '95, and Question 3 is vague on what exactly a "real-world event" actually is. In particular, I wanted to point out that the article states that a pop-culture reference does not need to fulfill all of the outlined questions. They are not strict requirements, but simply "AND/ORs". Thanks for the evaluation, Elektrik. --Swivelgames (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, depending on how you would like to skew it, the massive amount of uploads that occur on YouTube because of the reference could possibly be noteworthy, as it is not simply the existence of the reference, but the notability and popularity of the reference that has spurred the uploads. I could think of other more popular references to other more popular people or items that indeed have incurred more popularity and uploads on YouTube, but given the popularity of Bob Ross, the amount of uploads containing the Family Guy reference is indeed notable. But again, this argument may be a stretch. Swivelgames (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Boondock's reference may still not cut it, though, as the popularity of the reference is more important than the popularity of the show, video, or work. Boondock's and Family Guy's popularity are not necessarily an argument, but the popularity and response to Family Guy's reference could indeed be noteworthy, especially when relative to the number of Bob Ross references in pop culture and the popularity of all other pop-culture references to Bob Ross. Google's reference is, of course, undoubtedly popular. But Google's reference has, again, only fulfilled Question 2 of the notability requirements.Swivelgames (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ASMR

Perhaps there should be added a mention of Bob Ross having lately become an icon of ASMR (aka brain orgasm) via YouTube. 80.61.230.65 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference 4

Reference 4 does not contain the quote 'vowing "never to scream again."' This looks to have been inserted to prove an internet hoax that Bob Ross was an abusive Drill Sergeant.

"The correct reference is #5. I'll change the annotation. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

98.227.11.252 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)My name is James Needham. I was the General Manager of WIPB when we first contracted with Bob Ross to do the Joy of Painting Series #2 in 1983. Series #1 was initially produced at a station outside Washington, DC in Virginia, but later post-produced by WIPB and uplinked to satellite for the Joy of Painting Company, later Bob Ross Inc. Your information on the Joy of Painting is correct, and WIPB-TV, the PBS station licensed to Ball State University and still licensed to Ball State University in Muncie, IN was the originating station for the Joy of Painting for all of its PBS TV on-air series and productions. They were filmed in our studios at 246 Minnetrista Blvd. and later at the Ball Communications Building on the campus of Ball State University, both of which are located in Muncie, Indiana. If you need more information, contact me. bsu.needham@gmail.com98.227.11.252 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of detail

I dunno, this article lacks so much detail on how Bob Ross went from a minor US Airforce Sargent and bartender to learning how to paint via a German TV show about painting and then BOOM he gets a gig with PBS and finds national fame?--173.60.51.236 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Twitch marathon dispute

I was fixing a factual error in the "Influence and legacy" section because it said that the marathon was to conmemorate what would have been his 73th birthday, I replaced it with "...to celebrate the official launch of Twitch Creative", altrough later I included both sentences. My edit was then reverted by Mlpearc with no summary, so I procedurally reverted back saying "No summary given and not blatant vandalism", and then it was reverted with the summary "Sounded better before the change, no one is mentioning vandalism". Per WP:DISPUTED, I think my edit should be kept. (Pinging Mlpearc) --TL22 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Twitch section is just an advertisement for Twitch. Glatisant (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Can you please provide diff's to refresh my failing memory. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Note - I made this section when I first made my edit. However, right now the wording of the phrase looks a lot better now, so we can easily end this dispute. --TL22 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for your re-look. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sparcdr (30/11/2015 21:34 GMT-6) - On the channel: bobross located at: http://www.twitch.tv/bobross today has been a marathan of Bob Ross' work. It should be posthumously noted that there is a following of people and his work.

Proof of this here: https://i.gyazo.com/991817f10bb2cd50e2b461e0323df828.png as he has 8456 viewers as of 9:30pm -6 GMT on the 30th of November, 2015. Thanks!

If you agree as the amount of viewers is quite a few, then maybe we should add a section about Bob Ross' legacy or something like that.

Already done. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Bob Ross-inspired character in The Boondocks

In episode 12 of the first season of the TV comedy series The Boondocks, a Bob Ross-like character makes a prominent appearance in order to instruct Riley on a more effective way to channel his artistic talents. Being that The Boondocks is well known and popular, I move to include this detail in the "In popular culture" section of this article. The episode originally aired on 19 February 2006 on Cartoon Network. –– amanisdude (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be an addition to the page about how he has gained a cult following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to make the addition if you have a reliable source saying that he does in fact have such a following. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't believe no one's mentioned Ross/Picasso Epic Rap Battle Silverstina (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article made the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report at number ten with 393,217 views for the week November 1 to 7, 2015. It was number seventeen the week before. Ross gained the attention of Twitch.tv which hosted a marathon of The Joy of Painting. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, glad to help a little bit. Bod (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[[Julien111111 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)]]

Bob Ross referred to as God in the first episode of the fifth series of British sitcom Peep Show.

Julien111111 3/5/16

[[Julien111111 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)]]