Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:A Contract with God

Featured articleA Contract with God is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 6, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2014Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Publication date

Indicia of copies indicate the work was first copyrighted in 1978, and Eisner's webpage also lists that as year of publication. However, some web sources indicate a publication date of 1976, and Eddie Campbell's Alec: How To Be An Artist gave the date as October of 1977. Hiding 09:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move

I moved this page again to bring into line with the naming convention, since the work's full title is A Contract with God: And Other Tenement Stories. A Contract with God and A Contract With God both redirect here. Hiding 09:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I've put it back where Wikipedia naming conventions actually recommend it belongs. Tverbeek 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish perspective content

Although I ain't really a scholar on Judaism myself, but I saw the comments on the WikiProject Judaism talk page, and as someone kind of interested in comics, decided to have a little look-see.

The content is basically sound, and I personally have no reservations whatsoever about having individuals with mainstream literary credentials included in such articles. Having said that, I have some reservations about the exact content added. I am not myself sure, for instance, that the phrase "not a recognizably Jewish story" really adds much, because, honestly, I'm not sure that anyone ever said it was necessarily a "Jewish story," but maybe just a story about American Jews of a particular era, which isn't quite the same thing. A lot of the other content added also seems to deal primarily if not exclusively with the idea of Jewishness as well, and the same reservations more or less apply there - that they seem to be criticizing the story on its apparent lack of understanding of Judaism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think maybe a lot of the possibly real people Eisner used as the basis for his characters might have been comparatively "devoid of Jewish learning or insight," and on that basis the material might accuraately represent them, even if Klingenstein finds it a disappointment.

The idea that Hersh unrealistically struggles with basic Jewish teaching does seem to me to be potentially the most encyclopedic material included, because it is talking about the story itself as a story, rather than as a story from the Jewish perspective. I might revise the paragraph to start with that material, and then maybe edit down the other material to maybe saying something to the effect that the characters are presented as being what a possibly Jewish scholar? said are "devoid of Jewish learning and insight," with perhaps a few examples. But, again, the story is allegedly more or less autobiographical, and it could well be that the real people used as bases for the characters might not have been particularly well informed Jews themselves for all I know. Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try rearranging the paragraph along those lines.
As to the last point you made, I think that'd be fair to apply to the other characters in the book, but Hersh is depicted as particularly pious, and I think the criticism might come from that—that someone who was that religious wouldn't have struggled with such an (allegedly) elementary point. "Cookalein" is an autobiographical story, but "A Contract with God" is autobiographical only in the base situation, where both Hersh and Eisner lost their teenaged daughters. I think the idea is that Eisner channeled his feelings through Hersh, but the character of Hersh himself was not actually based on Eisner (who was born in the US, and, I get the feeling, was not devoutly Jewish(?) ). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about Eisner's religious life - I think the editors at the Comics project probably know more. I know he dealt with other Jewish issues in his other late work, but it could be possible that he might not have been particularly religiously Jewish. Alternately, it might be that the New Yorkers he grew up around might not have been, and I personally think that the latter might be the more likely. For all I know, this particular episode might be based on one or more real situation Eisner knew of as a child, which he in some way "edited down" to the story. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well, I guess this is why I was asking for help—I know little about the religious life, and much less about the religious lives of American Jews, so I wasn't confident if I was summing up the criticism adequately, or if I was giving it undue weight. I'll post something at WikiProject Comics. It looks like you've already posted there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten refocused it, cutting it down to roughly half the length it was. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Schumacher, gives a lot of information about Eisner's relationship with Judaism. Neither he nor his parents seem to have been particularly religious. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Contract with God/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first thing I am noticing is that the article has little discussion of the artwork, and no examples of it (other than the cover). I realize it is complicated with copyright etc. but I think that visual examples of the artwork is essential for an article like this to be comprehensive and well illustrated. It is possible to find ways of using non-free artwork in ways that comply with fair use - especially in articles like this were the artwork itself is the subject of discussion. I suggest looking at Jean Giraud for an example of how I have used small excerpts of comic art to support and illustrate discussions about the artist's style. I think that for example some illustrating examples of how Eisner uses text as part of the graphic expression, and how he avoids using frames would be very important for the article. And I think it is possible to do this with a well reasoned fair-use rationale and small excerpts of the artwork (e.g. not an entire page, but a single frame or detail scanned in low resolution). If in doubt I recommend consulting a copyright specialist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an illustration with a fairuse rationale. Feel free to move or remove it if you disagree that it improves the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm something of a copyright paranoiac, in that I avoid using copyrighted images even when I know they're allowed. I think I could live with the one you've added. It'd be nicer if it were in the sepia tones it was originally published in, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    3. it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]
    1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Regarding Criteria 2, I have a few concerns.

  • I think some of the important background information is missing or underexposed. FOr example the two main stories, A Contract with God and Cookalein, a specifically autobiographic. The article doesn't mention any of this either in the background or analysis section. I think this ought to be included. Schumacher has a lot of detail regarding how long for example the question of the contract being broken when good people suffer were on Eisner's mind (since his own daughter's death from leukemia), and he also describes how Cookalein contains many autobiographical elements. Eisner himself corroborated the autobiographical elements in all of the tenement stories, but specifically A Contract With God and Cookalein (which he says depicts his coming of age). The Super, and the Street Singer are also based on memories from his upbringing in the Bronx.
    • Actually, it's the subject of the second paragraph of the "Overview" section. Only "Cookalein" was outright autobiographical—"A Contract with God" was only autobiographical in that it drew from Eisner's feelings about the loss of his daughter (not adopted), but the plot itself is fiction. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what I meant was to give it a little bit more attention. I think most scholars take autobiographical to mean not simply representing the authors life but also the way it relates to details of their lived memory - both the Street Singer and the Super do so (not the plot but the characters). I think the especially situation with Alice's death and how it produced the thoughts that later created the graphic novel deserve more attention.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the article good go into more detail with the books publishing and the difficulties in finding a niche for an adult comic. Both Schumacher and Eisner himself tells of being snubbed by Bantam Books as soon as they saw it was a comic book, and there is also a funny anecdote about how Eisner couldn't find the book in a bookstore that he knew sold the book and they said they had had to remove it both from the "religion" and the "comics" section, to put it in a box in the basement. I think this has bearings on the question of how innovative the work was in its time.
    • The Oscar Dytel/Bantam stuff's there. I've seen the stories in more than one source. I didn't include them because I wasn't sure if they were really necessary to get the point across, or if they were trivia. I've added the story now to the "Reception and legacy" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt consider it trivia at all, it is anecdotal of course but Eisner himself and his biographers have commented on this as something that speaks to the relevance of the novel.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that the question of "is this the first graphic novel" deserves more attention as it is often discussed in the literature. It seems to me that it was clearly the first work to promote itself as a "graphic novel" and also the first work to establish that term as a separate genre. This in spite of the fact that other grapic novels had been published earlier (not using the word) and that the word had been used earlier (but not for a similar work). I think it would be good to describe more how groundbreaking and influential a work it has been.
    • I've talked with peole who raise concerns about this—that the book has been attributed a greater "influence" than it actually had, and that other, forgotten books had more of a contemporary influence on kickstarting the whole "graphic novel revolution". I think sources would be hard to come by (rigour is not a virtue comics "scholars" tend to possess), so I'd rather sidestep it rather than perpetuate what may be a myth. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eisner himself certainly considered it very groundbreaking and didnt sell it short, but I think the discussion is important to have and it is there in the literature. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the literature that discusses it comes years after the fact and doesn't demonstrate the claims with hard evidence—for instance, by stating that so-and-so was motivated to write graphic novels because of A Contract with God, or that so-and-so incorporated ideas from the book into such-and-such. Comics "scholarship" is rife with unbacked claims—for example, the decades-long claim that the CCA put to death EC Comics, supposedly one of the top-selling comic book publishers, and killed overall comicbook sales. Well, Jean-Paul Gabilliet went to the trouble of tracking down hard figures, and discovered that (a) EC was never one of the top selling publishers—they didn't even make the top five, and in fact a single issue of Dell's Walt Disney's Comics and Stories had twice the sales of EC entire line for the same month, and (b) sales had begun to fall after 1952, long before the CCA was established. Quote from Gabilliet: "And yet histories of American comic books have traditionally presented 1950–1954 as the age of EC."
That's just one example. Others include the idea that comics is an American invention—a view a "scholar" as prominent as Bill Blackbeard held up to his dying day, despite the mountains of evidence presented even in publications he contributed to. I don't trust comics "scholarship", so I don't feel comfortable propagating these claims unless the sources can back themselves up. The early 1980s "graphic novels" I'm familiar with show no trace of Eisner's influence, which isn't surprising when you consider they were sold through the direct market, which Eisner specifically avoided with his book, which by the early 1980s it was out of print anyways.
Obviously I have a lot of respect for the book—I wrote the article on it, right?—but I wouldn't be surprised if future scholarship downplays its contemporary impact. Tenebrae has pointed out the impact Sabre had on the development of the graphic novel format, an idea I resisted at first, but the more I look into it the more validity I see in it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The "Reception and legacy" section already calls the book "a milestone" in its very first paragraph, and says why, with citing, so anything more would be gilding the lily — "milestone" is a very significant word. And that same paragraph acknowledges that some have called it the first graphic novel, and that this objectively isn't so: Witness, aside from Sabre, the mass-market paperback Blackmark, or Steranko's Chandler: Red Tide (which used the term "graphic novel" for itself in 1976, two years before Eisner). The paragraph as it stands seems carefully balanced.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point isnt so much about balance, but about wight. I think the discussion of whether the novel is as significant as Eisner claimed it was is important to the coverage of the work, because it is prominent in the literatyre. I think more views both against and in favor of seeing the work as "the first graphic novel" would be useful. I imagine Gary Groth have had something interesting to say about the issue for example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't come across anything Groth specifically has said, but the Comics Journal did put the book on their Best of the 20th Century list (with a half-page writeup by David Rust)—that's already in the article. And if you're talking about Groth, I wouldn't be surprised if he took a less-than-favourable view of the book—particularly it's melodramatic flavour. Harvey Pekar didn't like the book—but then he didn't like Maus either. I think his "analysis" is a little too casual to include in the article, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an archive of Groth's personal Top 100 list. The Spirit's on there, but no Contract. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Comics Journal he has a kind of retrospective review of Eisner's work called "Eisner: Chairman of the Board", I believe he mentions Contract there, but I can't access it where I currently am.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Issue #267—unfortunatley I don't have access to that one. It's referenced in Schumacher. I think Hiding is supposed to have a nice collection of TCJ—I wonder if he's still around and willing to share.
I did track down the scathing review Schumacher mentioned that Groth wrote that made Eisner an enemy of TCJ: issue #119, "Will Eisner: A Second Opinion". He rips The Dreamer and The Building to shreds, and also tears down Eisner a couple of notches, but Contract is only mentioned in passing, and with no indication what Groth thought about it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for trying anyway. Maybe it will come eventually.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree somewhat with the summary of the Super which I think doesn't do justice to the way that Eisner does not simply depict Scuggs as a bad guy, the summary makes Rosie out as the hero, when in fact another reading is that she is the bad guy. The super's job afterall wasn't easy. I think the nuances in this story are lost in the summary.
    • Do you have any suggestions? I find it hard to see how a girl who offers a peak at her panties, poisons a dog, frames a guy for paedophilia, and steals his money comes off looking like a "hero", but as the guy who wrote the summary it'd obviously be hard for me to see where I've miscommunicated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I think that it could be good to include commentary by scholars or by Eisner himself on the character development - and the way he doesnt take sides. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that it would be a good idea to include "analysis" and commentary in the same sections as the summaries of the individual stories. For example the authobiographical elements and Eisner's own commentary on the stories could be included with the summary. Then the final "analysis" section could focus on the analysis of the work as a whole. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the analysis section as is, but then in the summary section add any commentary we can find that is specifically about each story. Again Schumacher has commentary on each of them. I am sure more can be found.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've now squeezed Schumacher for everything there is on "The Street Singer", "The Super", and "Cookalein". I think moving the material from "Analysis" would be awkward, but I'm open to suggestions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd tend to agree, since "Analysis" discusses multiple stories and compares themes, etc. And it just seems handier to have the analyses all in one place.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for worries about copyrights? You may be right, but I really think there should be ways of doing this. A GA about a novel will of course have quotes, and as long as they are attributed and not excessive that isn't a problem. I think it is sad that comics can't get as good a treatment just because they are visual.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I'm "worried" about copyright—I know it would fall squarely under "Fair Use" to have several—it's just that my way of thinking is that we should start with zero fair-use images, and only from there start adding images where not having them is a clear detriment. Call it my pinko Free Content politics, and imagine me with flowers in my unkempt hair. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it is impossible to adequately illustrate the article without using fair use images. Right now there is only one no? I think not having them is a clear detriment - perhaps not one for each story, but there are more points to illustrate about his graphical style than his use of text and windows. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are three now: the infobox image, the image you added, and another I added of Rosie stealiing the super's moneybox. I may replace the last two with scans from my own copy later if I find the time (I'd like to see them both in sepia). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I hadn't looked at the recent changes to the illustrative side. It looks good. I am not completely sure that the Masereel image is necessary, it is a little confusing to have tangentially related art by another artist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think an image of an important precedent is appropriate, though one of Lynd Ward's would've been better. The Masereel is in the public domain in the US (although not in Europe), and Ward's are not. This was there previously, with a note about Eisner's rôle in the early comicbook world. Tenebrae removed it, but I'd already been considering replacing it with the Masereel. What do you think? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, it's just a little distracting to see it before seeing any of the work in question. I think the Masereel is probably better than the Wonder comics one. I'm not going to haggle more about the illustrations, but just note that I would personally like more from the book.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the float, but I´ll leave it to your judgment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: do either of you guys know if the DC or Norton versions were printed in black instead of sepia? My own copy is a Kitchen Sink one. It just seems strange to me that almost all the images I can find online are in black ink, and I was wondering if it was maybe because the later publishers switched. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check if I own a DC or Norton version. I can tell you about the original Baronet, if you need, since I have both the hardcover and trade paper. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those must be worth a pretty penny! I assume they're in sepia, though, as that's what the sources state. The preview of the Contract with God Trilogy at Amazon is in black ink, a review talks of the "stark, black & white artwork", and another says "The black-and-white illustrations are perfect for the stories", so I assume the book itself is in black ink—disappointing. Is switching black ink for sepia such a burdensome expense? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This review confirms that the Norton edition, at least, is in black ink. I suppose I'd better add that, but first I'd like to confirm how DC's version was printed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one says the DC version is in sepia, but many of the black and white images I'm finding are claimed to be from the DC version ...hmmm   Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tenebrae, how are you with a scanner? I replaced the infobox image with one from the first edition, but I don't think it's the best scan—it's crooked, for one thing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to give it a try tomorrow. Your scan doesn't seem crooked to me, but then, your eyes are almost undoubtedly younger than mine!  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll only see it if you blow it up and look at the top—there's a space open at the left side but not at the right. Not a big deal, but a nicer scan would be ... uh ... nicer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hope it looks alright. I've also added the back cover, for reasons given in the caption. (I pulled out my hardcover, which has no artwork on the cover, while I was pulling out the trade paperback, and was delighted to see something I'd forgotten -- that it's #800-something of 1,500 signed copies! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

@Maunus, Curly Turkey, and Tenebrae: I've just been reading this useful and intelligent discussion...on my smartphone. It gets very hard to read when 10 or 12 or more levels of indentation compress the text into lines only 6 or 8 characters wide. And the basic problem is exacerbated by indenting by several levels at a time; please don't do that.

I've added several outdents to the discussion and reduced the subsequent indents accordingly. --Thnidu (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to keep in mind. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: I'm glad you agree and haven't taken offense. (Great username btw, and I love the Gasoline Alley illo!) --Thnidu (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's lovely, innit? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tellement truc unusité

Je recherche une liscense pour mes photos. Mes la photo en particulier est une photo de moi avec la lumière venant du soleil.Ou l"on peux voir une main de lumière me toucher le front. Puis je tombe sur cette pages mettant en lumière Le livres Contrat avec Dieu...... Bref sa m"étonne plus mais je devais marqué ce monent Ednozel (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First "modern" graphic novel

I'd like to improve some misleading descriptions in the Reception and legacy section. Namely, the first sentence: "A Contract with God has frequently, though erroneously, been cited as the first graphic novel;...." The statement is both right and wrong, however the "wrong" part is missing.

For example, W.W. Norton explains pretty clearly that it was, in fact, considered the first "modern graphic novel," which it contrasts with the then traditional "comic-book format." This fact is also noted in Paul Levitz's Will Eisner: Champion of the Graphic Novel (Abrams, 2015), where Levitz notes that Eisner's obituary in the NY Times described him as having "created ... the first modern graphic novel." So the key word missing is "modern," which makes it somewhat erroneous to say that the book was "erroneously" cited as being the "first graphic novel." Expanding that aspect would be useful. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is how Schumacher, who is cited throughout the article, explains the difference:

"Using this knowledge of publishing, Eisner created a book that didn't look like a comic book. It was the size of a trade paperback, had lettering on its spine, boasted a cover design that didn't scream 'children's book' to bookstore owners and librarians, and provided an interior that eschewed the panel-by-panel artistry typical of comic books." (p. 204) --Light show (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I have to wonder what "modern" is supposed to mean in this context. There were books that were appearing in the few years before Contract that were advertised as graphic novels: aside from The First Kingdom in 1974, in 1976 there were Bloodstar, Chandler: Red Tide, and George Metzger's Beyond Time and Again. How "modern" is "modern"? Further muddying the waters is the fact the definition of the term "graphic novel" has never been set in stone, and in the 21st is getting closer and closer to be a synonym for "comics" in general. What does "modern graphic novel" mean in that context? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "modern" has always been disputed, whether for modern art, architecture or furniture. All we can do is cite reliable sources if they use the term in the context of a subject. And we can cite other sources who dispute the use of the term in that context. It doesn't need to be set in stone to cite it. Comic writer and historian Michael Gilbert agreed that the issue "was one of definition." He noted that the older Classics Illustrated comic books could be described as being graphic novels. That's why describing the different physical format of Contract as more of a paperback book would be helpful.--Light show (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what the sources say they mean by "modern", or your interpretation of it? There are certainly plenty of precursors—a striking parallel being Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959, a four-story paperback aimed at mature audiences by a contemporary and friend of Eisner's). I think we'd need to demonstrate that there is a general consensus that Contract is "the first modern graphic novel", and I doubt there is such a consensus. We also have to be careful what comics "scholarship" has to say, as comics "scholars" are notoriously sloppy researchers (witness how many sources continue to claim Eisner first used the term "graphic novel", or that claim comics is an American artform). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're creating a new guideline, namely that a reliable source can only be cited after there is consensus. And I wasn't sure about your question. I didn't interpret anything; the Gilbert comment came from Schumacher. In any case, if source A says calls something "modern," "first" or a "graphic novel," and source B says it isn't, that's all fine, so long as their opinions are attributed. --Light show (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When reliacle sources disagree about a fact it is an editorial decision how to describe it in the article, whether to privilege one view as a consensus view or take a neutral stance. I think in this case I would recommend something along the lines of "often considered the first modern graphic novel", to accomodate the fact that some disagree on technical arguments with the fact that it clearly is the first well known and broadly popular graphic novel, and that it is very commonly described as such.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Light show: "Is sounds like you're creating a new guideline, namely that a reliable source can only be cited after there is consensus."—no, you misread my comment. "Consensus" refers to "scholarly consensus".
"if source A says calls something "modern," "first" or a "graphic novel," and source B says it isn't, that's all fine, so long as their opinions are attributed."—so we should create an exhaustive list of people's opinions and their refutations, as long as we can cite them? How does that serve the reader?
·maunus: The article already states that it is the book that popularized the term and describes the background behind the term. Why is that not sufficient? Is the article unclear on the book's place in comics history without loading up the article with disputed peacocky statements? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think clearly stating the significance of a topic is peacockery. Currently the lead says that "although the term graphic novel did not originate with will eisner the book is credited with popularizing its use". I would call that an understatement of the fact that it is widely considered the world's first significant graphic novel. It would not be peacockery to state "the work is often describe as the first graphic novel", and then put into a footnote that the term did not originate with Eisner and that two relatively obscure works had previously used it. We discussed this in the GA review and I still think you are letting your own distaste for the work overshadow the way that the general public views it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the world's first significant graphic novel"—uh, no, maunus. Surely you are aware that book-length comics were well established in Europe and Japan decades before Anglo comics managed to get in on the game.
"two relatively obscure works had previously used it"—two? You might want to check your facts. At least one in 1974 and three in 1976 (just off the top of my head) use the term "graphic novel". Plenty of others had the form without using the term, such as Blackmark in 1971. Contract was an important watermark, but it's hard to argue it was the "first" anything, as Tenebrae agreed at the GAN.
"letting your own distaste for the work": I think it's Eisner's best graphic novel and put in the time bringing it up to FA. This is "distaste"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misremembered when I seemed to have a memory of you saying something to the effect that it wasnt particularly good or important and that mostly the reason it has come to be known as the worlds first significant graphic novel (I dont think any of the previous ones, regardless of their number are remotely comparable in significance) was that Eisner used it as a marketing ploy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the fact that "it is hard to argue that Contract was the first anything" is not relevant, what is relevant is that many people consider it to be so, and know it as such. And note that noone is argueing that the article should say that it IS the first graphic novel, but only that it is often considered to be so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"what is relevant is that many people consider it to be so": which is dealt with in the article, so what's the problem? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey states the facts accurately and succinctly. I would also note that it's a very serious thing when any editor tries to make major, substantive changes to a Featured Article, which has been peer-reviewed throughly and considered among Wikipedia's best. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are not immune to editing, and the FA status is not a valid reason to stifle discussion on how to improve the article. I am not going to press the point further, but simply wanted to acknowledge that I think Light show has a valid point that merits discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I in no way said "immune" or "immutable", and the fact we're discussing it shows no one's stifling discussion. And do you really not believe that major, substantive changes to an FA is not something that should be undertaken with great seriousness? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is being less than serious here?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: If we all agree with my reiteration that we should take this seriously, then what's the issue? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply that you seemed to use an appeal to seriousness to imply that the discussion proposed by Light show was somehow not sufficiently serious to merit attention. If that is not what you meant then there is no problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested FAs were untouchable, so let's put an end to this tangent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the first paragraph of the Legacy section could be considered a synthesis conclusion, stating that reliable sourced opinions are "erroneous," and trying to prove it with the sentences following. And even without the OR, why any Legacy section would start with proving cited descriptions are not true is beyond me. --Light show (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no SYNTH whatsoever. It's a verifiable fact that A Contract with God is not the first graphic novel. That said, we may not need the whole litany of history that follows the statement, since the statement is cited and anyone can go to Graphic novel to learn more of the form's history. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a "litany": there's the first use of the term, the earliest known use of the term on a work, and a well-known early instance of the form. I'd consider that minimum context. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) : Now you've gone off the deep end. Demonstrate the synthesis from this quote from the actual cited source:
"It has become common in histories of the medium to cite Will Eisner and his 1978 A Contract with God as the first graphic novel and the first use of that term to promote an extended-length comics narrative."
...
However, as comics studies has come into its own as a discipline, scholars have taken pains to document that Contract was not the first graphic novel. ... [long list of precursors] ... In 1978, alongside Contract, there were at least five other long-form comics that, by virtue of content and format, had a better claim to the designation graphic novel
Now do your magic and show how what's in the article is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you're juggling the time element. The Legacy now states, "A Contract with God has frequently, though erroneously, been cited as the first graphic novel." To be accurate, it could state, "At the time of its publication, 'A Contract with God was widely considered to be the first 'modern graphic novel.' However, as comics studies came into its own as a discipline, scholars have documented that Contract was not the first 'graphic novel,' although various sources (Norton, NYT, etc.) still consider it the first 'modern' graphic novel." I would follow that with the reasons and who gave them, as noted above by Schumacher and others. As primary editor, your're no doubt aware that even Duncan & Smith, the two most used sources in the article, wrote a number of details that would expand on the subject:

"It has become common in histories of the medium to cite Will Eisner and his 1978 A Contract with God as the first graphic novel and first instance of that term used to promote an extended-length comics narrative.(citing Williams and Lyons, 2010) In fact, in 1998 the University of Massachusetts hosted a three-day symposium, "The Graphic Novel: A Twentieth Anniversary Conference on an Emerging Literary and Artistic Medium," which was clearly honoring the 1978 publication of Contract as the beginning of the graphic novel. In 2003, Time's "The Graphic Novel Silver Anniversary" article marked those 25 years as beginning in 1978 with Contract."(Duncan, p. 148)

Duncan goes into much more detail, as you know, about what made his graphic novel distinct from previous ones. --Light show (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"At the time of its publication, 'A Contract with God was widely considered to be the first "modern graphic novel.": and your citation for that is? Find me a source from 1978–79 that considered Contract "the first graphic novel". My understanding is that it gained that status retroactively, after the "graphic novel boom" of the mid-1980s and the publication of Comics and Sequential Art. The quote you cite above gives no date earlier than 1998 that Contract may have been considered the "first". That the book is often considered the first is actually handled in the article, by the way, as you're aware. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It states in the Background section, "He marketed it as a 'graphic novel'—a term which had been in use since the 1960s, but was little known until Eisner popularized it with Contract.[31]" That implies that at the time, "it was considered to be the first." In any case, the first sentence in the Legacy section is based on today's knowledge, so the unstated time gap in the sentence could be explained to be clear. Was it therefore "erroneous" at the time to think the book was the first? Apparently not.--Light show (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite the limb you've gone out on! Nothing in that statement coems anywhere in the vicinity of anything resembling "it was considered to be the first". You've WP:ORed yourself out of credibility, I'm afraid. Good luck building a consensus on that fantasy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Contract with God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Contract_with_God