Reads like a resume[edit]

This reads an awful lot like a resume. Particularly weak for a major figure in the history of cartooning. - Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material in need of sourcing[edit]

I moved the following unsourced information here until it can be sourced per WP:V:

Feiffer was born in New York City, in the borough of the Bronx, and attended the former James Monroe High School.

Feiffer is a member of the Dramatists Guild Council and has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

He is married to writer/performer Jenny Allen and has three daughters. Among them are the American actress Halley Feiffer and the Nantucket author Kate Feiffer.Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, the Rat with Women[edit]

The article makes no mention of Feiffer's first novel, Harry, the Rat with Women, published in 1963.Uniquerman (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four cartoons, too many?[edit]

The article has four cartoons or excerpts of Feiffer's copyrighted work. I suspect that's more than needed to illustrate his style and the article isn't commenting on them individually, so we're probably violating fair use. Comments? --173.76.64.157 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I removed two. Pepso2 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography cites need page numbers[edit]

I don't have a copy of Backing into Forward: A Memoir (yet!). The citations for it need pages numbers. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrum?[edit]

What, no mention of Tantrum? I don't know a lot about Feiffer, but if Tantrum's not even mentioned in the article, I suspect an awful lot more important information is missing. Acidtoyman (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article needs work. But I remember there's mention of Tantrum (of which I have a treasured copy) at graphic novel, so I'll 'port over the info. Good call! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image use[edit]

Last year, I placed a wonderful photo of Jules Feiffer taken at a discussion at Butler Library at Columbia University. This was not a candid shot but taken to document the event, and was one of many (including video). There was no photo on this page, and I placed this photo here. It was replaced with no explanation a few days ago, and when I moved this replacement historical photo down and placed the recent photo back, it was called a "candid shot" (which it was not). Is there an objection to the photo itself (which was picked because it shows his character), or is the objection other than that? The recent photo is also much higher resolution.

Thanks for any comments. Tduk (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image was replaced because, as the summary rationale stated, "A public event candid w/o context not as useful as a peak career image for notability." The fact that you labeled your image "recent photo," as opposed to the other, which you called a "historical photo," implies that you're less concerned with context.
However, the older image was used in newspapers to announce a 1976 TV special devoted to his career, called "Artists in America." That special covered his work as a cartoonist and screenwriter. His career began in the 1940s, and the older image best reflects his notability which shows him during the peak of his career. There's nothing wrong with the recent image other than it lacks any context. The most recent career activity discussed his teaching job in 2009. In any case, a bio's lead image should not use a recent photo just because it's recent, regardless of who took it. --Light show (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by without context? It says where it was taken. Why do you insist on calling it a 'candid'? This is the event it is from [1]. Tduk (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The event is not even mentioned in the article. If there was some press coverage and commentary about it, then it could have some context to the article. It appears to be a candid, which is defined as "a photograph captured without creating a posed appearance." Most celebrity shots taken at events are candids. But a celebrity photo such as this one, however, also at a public event, but where she is obviously posing for the camera, would not be a candid. But whether a photo is posed or candid is not critical, so long as it supports the commentary.--Light show (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed by the replacement of a clear photo of what Jules looks like now, with a shadowy image that has headphones obscuring much of his head. That old photo looks just as "candid" as the recent photo, and gives less of a sense of what Jules actually looks like. If you want to show what Jules looked like "at the peak of his career" then use the B&W shot in the body of the entry. But let people see what he actually looks like when they first open the site.Klg19 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for picture change[edit]

CARTOONIST OR CARTOONIST CROP
The historical photo is not necessarily more "encyclopedic looking" especially given the headphones and the cigarette. The Cartoonist photo is more notable and there seems to be enough consensus for it. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see this discussion resolving so I thought it best to start an RFC for which picture is preferred where in the article. Tduk (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the initiative of adding a third option to the discussion which I think is perfectly viable, though it should be noted that it is in the article already, and well suited to its position. Still, given the connection to the main notability of the subject, and the fact that it is a high quality photo in it's own right, I'd say it's easily as reasonable as the alternatives. Hope I'm not giving the impression of stepping on anyone's toes. Snow let's rap 04:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories