Talk:John McHale (artist)

Untitled

BLP? Um, I hate to add stuff at the top of the talk page, but I think it's important to note near this template that according to the article, McHale has been dead for nearly thirty years. That makes anything BLP-specific on this page, which seems to be most of it, including the categorization, mis-framed at best, and in some cases simply wrong. -- Akb4 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove of content per BLP concerns

I have removed content which seems to be original resarch without citation of independent reliable sources to change the attribution of Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? from Richard Hamilton to John McHale. If the attribution of this collage to Hamilton should be changed to McHale not original resarch, like resarch by his son, but only verifiable material that has been published by reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy may be used, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. In articles related to living persons also WP:BLP states: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. If primary research on the topic was done, publication oft the results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites is needed, and Wikipedia will report about this work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Consensus about the insertion of such material should be established prior to usage in the article at the talk page. --VirtualDelight 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a large amount of unreferenced information from this article following a complaint (VRTS ticket # 2006110910007418). Please cite reliable sources for all information in this and any other article in accordance with the Verifiability policy and Reliable sources guidelines. If possible, please use the footnote syntax to clearly designate which source supports a particular piece of information. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This original concern about documentation and artistic provenance has been superseded by current attribution of design to John McHale as per Jeremy Hunt article on This Is Tomorrow, and the wiki site does quote sources so stop blocking and stubbing the text. You are Delight-fully out of date. Ottex 18.1.07 —70.48.169.175 22:12, 18 January 2007

The revision in question does not cite verifiable and reliable sources. Every statement in the article should be confirmed by reliable, preferably online sources listed under a 'References' section. For copyright reasons, we cannot copy text wholesale from a website or publication. For an example of a well-sourced article, see The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The text needs proofreading, online sources, and <ref> tags matching individual statements or paragraphs to particular sources. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started this process. It will take a while, and I'd be happy if others helped. I'm really quite concerned about the original research and non-NPOV item in this and John McHale related articles. There's obviously a compaign by McHale's son (and possibly others) to rewrite history. What they are saying may be true, but unless verifiable sources are added beyond interviews with the son, it's original research. We can explain that claims are being made towards certain rethinking of McHale's vs. Hamilton's roles in Pop Art history, but it can't at this time be stated as fact. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. Freshacconci 13:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

YET ANOTHER 'FRESH' HACK JOB. Footnotes with numbers will be provided as seen fit, they are not imperative by wiki rules.For example Hamilton's site has no fotnotes and evidently you have totally ignored screwing around with his site.Ottex 3.5.07

(PS: the above comments aren't intended as some sort of "instruction" or explanation of wiki policies to Pathoschild; I'm just using his comment to branch off. I just realized that it may read that way, however). Freshacconci 13:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

diner?

I have removed the following from the Diner page:

 The Duchess Diner John McHale the Pop artist frequented in the mid 1950's was on Chaple Street near Crown, in New Haven, Connecticut.

While I think it's fine to note people's favorite diners in their biographies, I don't think the diner page should list everyone's favorite diner; that would get unwieldy pretty quickly. But since I don't have a source, and since this article is kind of a mess anyway, I'm just dropping it here for posterity. -- Akb4 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Akb this was listed under "Trivia" on a competely different site, if you did not catch the humerous artistic relevance to McHale's POP art work at Yale as documented with Diner photo in MIT Robbins Aesthetics of Plenty page 87: John McHale photo of American Diner (New Haven) 1955, then that is Just What Is too bad.Ottex 3.5.07

If you'r resorting to 'Fresh'acconci pot Ad hominem at least get your 'crack pot' moniker correct: McHale Sr. was the Father of POP, with sons, and was a Crack POP Artist. Also, if you continue your hack edits get you modern art facts correct about McHale+ Victor Pasmore and British Constructivism. Ottex 4.10.07

Just what is it?

Jeremy Hunt here http://www.state-of-art.org/state-of-art/ISSUE%20SEVEN/hunt-7.html does state that "Recent publications now attribute the image to Hamilton based on a design by McHale." In the context of the rest of the article, this is a neutral compromise position, in the light of the campaign of John McHale's son to credit his father with authorship of the image, not an endorsement of John McHale Jr.'s position.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the reference in the article, but feel it should be replaced by a more reliable published source.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the value of neutral research! Would you be able to work this into this article and into Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? and hopefully that will be that. Every time I attempt to make a change or comment on changes, someone keeps reverting it or attacking me on the talk page. Freshacconci 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which I've seen you've just done! Freshacconci 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh You are given the Robbins/ Magda Cordell citations on all the McHale collage material used by Hamilton for the production of the Just What collage and you are up to your customary dishonest editorial antics of deletions.Ottex 3 Sept —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.59.9 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated Magda Cordell's claim that the material for the collage came from McHale's files with a properly formatted reference. Edits are less likely to be reverted if statements are accompanied with inline citations.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 'Ethical', hopefully this will stop Fresh in in his un-ethical edits. Ottex 3 Sept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.57.52 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding your fixations, you should read WP:TROLL before making accusations of unethical behaviour, junior. Also try WP:SOCK and WP:COI for some bedtime reading. Cheers! Freshacconci 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to McHale's tear sheets provided to the collage team are given in Robbins Aesthetics of Plenty page 58 along with text and a colour photo inset. The Robbins text quote: Earth viewed from rocket...in John McHale's archives (the "trunk from America")... the left section was used by Richard Hamilton for ...collage 'Just What Is It That Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?'. So why is this citation being deleted from the wiki text? Ottex Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.52.251 (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. It was placed "inside" the reference by Ethicoaestheticist. You'll find it at note 5. The formatting of the info is a bit cleaner this way. Freshacconci | Talk 03:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Fresh/Ethics work on the Robbins footnote re McHale's iconic collage material of the high altitude view of the Earth as featured in Life Magazine Sept 5, 1955, pages 10-11. Thanx/Ottex Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.56.35 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Who coined term?

McHale originally developed the concept of Pop Art and coined the term "Pop Art" in 1954.

Sources? If anyone's credited, it's usually DAlloway (A Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Art, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists agree on this - though DAlloway said he didn't previsely recall when or how it came into parlance). Chief source for McHale coining it is McHale's son (plenty of reliable sources cite this also). So really both versions need reporting. Gordonofcartoon 12:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who pray is "Dalloway"? Do you mean Alloway? He did not use the term pop art in his original 1958 article. The initial concept of pop art was developed and the specific term "Pop art" was coined by John McHale in 1954. So why did you edit it out of the text? Get your facts right before mangling the text. Ottex Nov 23 07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.82.210 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Probably late-night edit. Yes, Lawrence Alloway. My mistake doesn't alter the fact that all of the sources I cited above say the term was coined by Alloway. We are bound to report what reliable sources say. So why should we accept your unsourced assertion that it was definitively McHale? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for the 'Fresh' monumental edit of a [.] bracket around a period in Alloway's citation. That must have taken a considerable amount of intellectual talent. Meanwhile you edited out the crucial point in the combined Oxford University Press footnotes on Alloway stating that the references fail to account for the fact that Alloway did not use the specific term "pop art " in his often misquoted 1958 article.Ottex/Dec007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the term "Pop art" was in general circulation among the Independent Group by 1955, one year after McHale had initially developed and coined the term. It can be noted that two years prior to Alloway's often misquoted article of 1958, the ICA/IG Brutalist architect Peter Smithson used the specific term Pop art in an article published in ARK 1956. Reynor Banham also wrote an article in an Italian magazine describing the ICA interest in mass culture that predates Alloway's 1958 article. So the Oxford Dictionary is wrong on a number of counts, and therefore is an unreliable source.Ottex4/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)