Talk:Picasso at the Lapin Agile

Merge

A no-brainer. No doubt. Let's just do it. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge of course. 100% agreed. Someone with a bit of knowledge of the subject do this, please. --Millard73 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Identical - must be done Bluetooth954 3 Febuary 2007

I plan to do it, although would not be disappointed if someone were to beat me to it. If they were truly identical, it would be easy. Just finding the time. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, and this being rather obvious, I did the merger. --199.17.210.89 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this script has been published in any legitamite source? Based on the controversy and this synopsis, I am curious to read. ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.182.95 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the controversy?

Was hoping for some answers here - what's so controversial about the play? Full of bad language? Endorsing excessive alcohol consumption? Some examples would be good... 84.9.58.150 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hesitant to add that part because the article I cited isn't very detailed, and I wanted to avoid the potential error of overstating the alleged problems of Steve's play. There could be one turn of phrase that is offensive when taken a certain way, or the characters of the play could all be uncouth, sexist bigots, but (probably) something in between those two extremes. So I had to choose from making a possibly incorrect assumption (very bad), quoting wholesale from the secondary source (kinda bad), being vague (not great), or finding another secondary source (good). Since I was too lazy to find another source, I was vague. Here is the BBC article in question: Steve Martin backing banned play. I'll try to elaborate a little more in the Controversy section. BigNate37_(T) 03:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be much more information in this article.24.18.247.217 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a La Grande High School student, so I am in the midst of this controversy. This section implies, to me, that Steve Martin sparked the move of the play, this is untrue (see this article, written before Martin's letter). Also, saying that he would assist with the fundraising would be an understatement, I think; in his letter he says he will fully sponsor the play. The Grand Rans (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That is better. Thank you. The Grand Rans (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Behaviour vs. behavior

I suspect Mr. Martin was mis-quoted - as a wild and crazy american male, its unlikely he wrote "behaviour." But since I source says it (and its not a change in meaning), I guess we should stick with it. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research?

Just added a {{NPOV language}} tag, mainly because of the "Analysis" and "Characters, in order..." sections. Both sections needs a copyedit for neutrality, as phrases like "however sometimes he says something truly stunning" and "with his manipulating moves" do not seem to fit with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. "Characters..." is in the most need of help.

In addition, "Analysis" is not a good section title to find on a Wikipedia article, because it implies that the article does comply with Wikipedia's policy on original research. That section also has elements which sound like they may be copied from an original advertisement or synopsis of the play. Perhaps this section could be cleaned up and retitled "Plot"? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)