Talk:Point the Finger

Pages

Resolved

It looks like there are different versions or editions of the comic with different numbers of pages. Many of the sources say the work is only five pages, but I don't think that's the first edition, as it's clearly six. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Partially solved, with the addition of Becker 2022, p. 72. However, while this source corrects the previous error of five pages repeated by many other references, it seems to make a new error, saying that the story was written in 1986 instead of 1989. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I finally figured out why so many sources say there were only five pages. It turns out that Priscilla Frank of the Huffington Post was one of the early websites to re-introduce the old 1989 strip to the public during the summer of 2016 while the Trump campaign was in full swing. Other sources must have reviewed this link as it probably went viral and concluded there were only five pages in the strip as Frank appears to have not uploaded the second page. Looking at the second page on my end from the original comic, there may be reasons they chose not to upload it, or perhaps it was an oversight. Either way, I think this solves the mystery. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Related material

1. I'm not sure if it belongs here, but apparently, Trump supporters attempted to claim the "Keep on Trucking" work as their own and turned it into variations of "Keep on Trumping", and either used Crumb's original art or some variation of it with Trump's visage instead of Mr. Natural. This so upset Crumb that he released somewhere around six anti-Trump t-shirts as a kind of push back. Again, not sure if it belongs in this article, but it is tangentially related.
2. Crumb and his wife (now deceased) collaborated on newer Trump artwork together that was shown in an exhibition. I'm still trying to find sources for it; so far, I've only found passing mentions of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

American comics category

I added the American comics category because there is no "Comics about the United States" category. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Point the Finger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 09:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Gosh, I haven't thought about Crumb since my comics history class in undergrad... this will be interesting to review! I typically prefer to make simple prose edits myself and only make comments about trickier stuff, but of course you should feel free to revise or discuss any changes I may make in that way. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Viriditas, that was a very smooth review! The only thing tied to the GA criteria are two ideas to increase the "breadth" of the article and one bumpy bit of prose I wasn't sure how to smooth out; let me know what you think about those. The other notes have some optional suggestions. Looking forward to passing this soon! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• It's bit jarring to start with Robert Crumb continued to satirize... when we haven't heard yet that he had started satirizing. Maybe something like "In his extensive comics career starting in the 1960s, Crumb often satirized...". Otherwise, no issues with the prose. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies, but I do love in medias res. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  In case it wasn't clear, I was making a joke. I will revisit. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I enjoyed the joke :) And the revised version addresses my concern, so I've marked the prose as good to go. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I really wanted to find more detail for The comic received additional attention in 2016 but I couldn't turn up anything reliable! So even though it's pretty brief, I conclude this is as much as the article can feasibly say (no "breadth" problem). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, but I didn't write that. That was added by another editor. Happy to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's fine to stay -- this basic statement is clearly verified by its source. Bringing it up was just me thinking-out-loud and verifying that I'd evaluated this aspect of the "breadth". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thinking about breadth: it would be nice to describe somewhere the basics of the comic's visual appearance. For example, it's black and white, it has Crumb's signature energetic and heavily-inked style, there are six (?) square panels per page... is there a source that spells out these details, which could orient readers to the basic facts of the comic? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Will look into it. I think there is at least one. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Working on this now. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  No source found. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I can just briefly describe it and point to the ISBN/OCLC. I don't see a problem with that as long as I don't deviate from basic, uncontroversial facts that anyone can agree with just by looking at the comic. It would be similar to citing how many pages it has, the publisher, etc. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Doing this now. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Added. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking for sources there, and I agree that the basic details you added are appropriate to source to the comic itself. Good find for the Alan Pipes quote on his signature style. This addresses my concern, which was the last outstanding one tied to the GA criteria -- I think this article is good to go! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• For the source check, I'm checking sources 3, 6, 7, and 8, as numbered in this diff.
  • 3, 6, and 7 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I do think you could use 7 (Hock 2020) for more than just a plot summary -- Hock critiques the story for promising "a broader consideration of Trump's role in American life" but falls short "in its focus on Trump the personality". Hock also says that because the comic "effac[es] any historical specificity to Trump's position, as well as any possibility of agency that could effect change," despite its negative attitude toward him, "Trump's wealth and power come across as products of his sheer personal magnetism. ... the story's narrative logic fits with Trump's own self-fashioning. This, then, is one of the dangers in crafting Trump fiction: the possibility that, in focusing on Trump, the text will fall into the trap of playing by Trump's rules". All of that stuff could add an interesting few sentences to the "critiques" section, since it's a different point being made than just the comments on sexism. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Agreed. In progress. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Working on this now. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Just want to point out that Hock was wrong about the pagination. The comic is six full pages, not five. There have been several editions (as I've noted in the new publication history section) but this article says six pages because that's how many there were in the original. Working on the rest. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    "It’s just like th' fuckin' Roman Empire! Nothing's changed in 2,000 years". Note, this is Crumb's callback to Philip K. Dick in Weirdo #17 (1987) from two years prior. Dick used the phrase "The Empire never ended" throughout Valis and it is part of the theme of Crumb's comic about PKD in '87. Unfortunately, I can't mention this without a source. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Added first pass on more Hock material. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks, this adds a lot! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I wasn't able to fully access 8 (Worden 2021) but through strategic querying of the gbooks preview I am satisfied that the relevant material is verified. The quote is accurate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Nevertheless, I will check it again to make sure. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have Worden 2021 in front of me. Let me know if you want me to email you a copy or want me to verify certain aspects. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Doing the source check, I noticed that the shortened footnotes are done manually rather than using Template:Sfn! That means that when someone mouses over the short footnote (e.g., Miller 2022, p. 54) there's no link to the long footnote. I believe that still satisfies the GA criteria for referencing, since GA just requires that some system is used to organize the footnotes, but in future you may want to try using the Sfn template. I found it quite quick & intuitive to start using, and it's pretty slick in how it assists in source-checking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have another fix in mind. I tend to stay away from templates because when I took a long break, I returned to find all the templates in my articles broken. Since then, I've found plain text to be more reliable over time, however, the compromise I've developed involves the use of anchor tags, which gives the same appearance. I will fix this. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not important to the GA criteria, and it you don't like templates you don't have to use them! Just wanted to mention it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed refs. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also, it would be good to cite both Hock 2020 and Worden 2021 to the specific chapter rather than the whole book. It's not vital, since a page number is provided to simplify verification, but it would be good practice. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Appropriate non-free-use rationale for the cover image. For additional images, anything more closely related to the comic would be copyrighted, but it looks like we have three different photos of Trump and Reagan shaking hands in the 80s which could be fun to include: ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  (Obviously, I meant one would be fun to include, though part of me now thinks Crumb would improve of adding a gallery of all three...!) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. I will get to this shortly. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Working on it now. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Added one image. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Added a second image of another figure. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, the Trimalchio image is a great idea! These look good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 06:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the comic book story "Point the Finger", Robert Crumb calls Donald Trump "one of the most evil men alive"?

• Source: Worden, Daniel (ed.) (2021). "Introduction: R. Crumb in Comics History". The Comics of R. Crumb: Underground in the Art Museum. University Press of Mississippi. pp. 13-15. ISBN 9781496833808. OCLC 1244620552.

• ALT1: ... that the comic book story "Point the Finger" is categorized as "Trump fiction"?

• Source: Hock, Stephen (ed.) (2020). "Introduction: Reading Trump". Trump Fiction: Essays on Donald Trump in Literature, Film, and Television. Lexington Books. pp. 1-4, 5-6, 7-14. ISBN 9781498598057. OCLC 244482651.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Time (2021 film); Template:Did you know nominations/1968 Bucks County Community College protest; Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Kurdej-Szatan

Improved to Good Article status by Viriditas (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 35 past nominations.

Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC).

• Drive-by comment: I think both proposed hooks would be significantly improved by noting that the story is from 1989. TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @TompaDompa: Which one of these do you prefer:
    • ALT1a: ... that the 1989 comic book story "Point the Finger" is categorized as "Trump fiction"?
    • ALT1b: ... that the comic book story "Point the Finger" (1989) is categorized as "Trump fiction"?
    • ALT1c: ... that the comic book story "Point the Finger", written in 1989, is categorized as "Trump fiction"?
    • ALT1d: ... that "Point the Finger", a comic book story written in 1989, is categorized as "Trump fiction"?
    • ALT1e: ... that the category of "Trump fiction" includes "Point the Finger", a comic book story written in 1989?
  • Or do you have other ideas? Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't really have any strong opinions on the matter, but the first two are briefer than the others (which is usually considered a plus). I'll leave it to whoever ends up reviewing this. TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• I was asked to comment here by the nominator, although I'm not comfortable actually giving this review, so I'll just state that my preference is for ALT1a. I don't see this hook as "Trump bashing" but rather something factual, so personally I'm fine with it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest ALT0a: ... that in the 1989 comic book story "Point the Finger", Robert Crumb calls Donald Trump "one of the most evil men alive"?.--Launchballer 06:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Eh, not really a fan of the "evil man" alive angle. Not only is it basically Trump bashing, but the Trump fiction angle seems more unusual and interesting. Trump's a very polarizing figure, so saying he is "evil" no matter the context is a bit of a "well, duh" thing to his critics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• This article, promoted to GA on 17 January, is new enough, long enough, presentable, and well-sourced. Grand Comics Database, though user generated, seems to have editorial oversight. QPQ done. I wouldn't object to ALT0a as excessively trump-bashing, as it just reports the (surprisingly early stated) views of noted avant-garde leftie R. Crumb. But if the promoter shares the concerns of editors above, ALT1c is fine. Both hooks are cited and their citations check out. Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Considering not everyone knows who Crumb is, and given your above comment, ALT1a is probably the safer option (I prefer it to ALT1c due to reading better/being snappier). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)