Talk:Maus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Same sentence -- different question

The book uses postmodern techniques—most strikingly by representing Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs.

My question is, how or why is this a postmodern technique? Would need to have a citation for that. And how or why is it "striking"? People have been doing that for centuries. Both of these statements need serious citations. Would probably be easier to just cut out the editorialization and say "The book represents Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs." Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Postmodern" is cited in the body (the lead summarizes the body and therefore requires no citations that are already in the body), and it's not hard to find sources for "Maus postmodern". The animals are not simple traditional anthropomorphism, which is where the postmodernism comes into it: the whole "meta" self-consciousness, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that the book has some elements of postmodernism, but I am questioning that the use of different animals to portray different groups of people is postmodern, let alone "strikingly" so. Calling that "postmodern", let alone "strikingly postmodern", needs a citation. The only thing mentioned as postmodern in the body text is the book feeding on itself by telling the story of how it was made, which is a postmodern technique. Using different animals to portray different groups of people had been done long before postmodernism (I'm not talking about simple traditional anthropomorphism). Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps one could say, in the body of the article, that Maus displays the postmodern quality of being "self-referential". I don't know what the source says. Does anybody have the actual wording in the source? If the source does not speak of the representation of groups of people as strains of animals, then we would be incorrect in the present assertion in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: That (self-referential) is already cited. What is in question is the question I posed in my OP. Mention in a source that of groups of people are represented as different animals does not equate to that being postmodern, much less strikingly so. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, except if the source says otherwise, in which case I would probably defer to the source. Can anyone provide a a relevant excerpt from the source? Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What "source" are you talking about? All sources that describe the book obviously note that different groups of people are represented as different animals, because that's the major device of the book. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph within the body of the article with the quote "feeds on itself" contains two citations. I don't have ready access to either of those publications. The two publications are the 1997 Monica Wood book and the 2006 James E. Young book. I would be interested in reading the actual wording found in one or both of those publications relating to the "postmodern" dimension to Maus. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I found it here: "Like any good postmodern memory-art, Maus thereby feeds on itself, recalling its own production, even the choices the artist makes along the way." Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. However it's not listed as the source (nor listed anywhere in the citations); in fact the sentence does not have a citation at all. It does indeed appear that that is the source the info was taken from (unless Young repeated himself almost verbatim in the 2006 article). The other three citations in that paragraph are appended to other sentences, and the 2006 Young article cited is not viewable online without a subscription. Anyway, if the 1998 Young article that you posted above is the only source for the postmodernism claim, it only refers to the novel referring to how it was created; that's the only postmodern element. I've checked the two other viewable citations for the other sentences in that paragraph, and they don't contain the word postmodern (or postmodernism/postmodernist), so they aren't referring to the postmodern aspect. At this point it's looking like the mention of postmodernism should be removed from the lede, or if kept it should be another sentence entirely and refer to the actual cited postmodern element instead. Softlavender (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the only postmodern element is the book's discussing its own creation. Groups of people represented as different types of animals does not seem to be supported by sources as being a postmodern element. I think we can just omit mention of animals from the lede. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can omit the use of the different animal groups in the lede, because that is a major part of the article and book. We can however omit postmodernism in the lede, because that is just one small bit and one sentence in this article. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd hardly call its self-referentiality its "only postmodern element"—for instance, here's an article titled "Reading Art Spiegelman's Maus as Postmodern Ethnography", and many sources talk of distancing, etc. Maus is the single most analyzed graphic novel ever written—it's not hard to find sources, which would be a better use of time than discussing your own interpretations of the work or postmodernism. The animal metaphor is meant to (and frequently does) rupture, which is hardly a traditional use of anthropomorphism. The animals are not meant to be animals at all, and in several scenes the animal masks become literal masks. This ain't Mickey Mouse or Animal Farm. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever we say should be supported by a source (obviously) and should be clear to the reader. We still don't have a source supportive of the use of animals as a postmodern element. The above source might support an assertion such as: "Some view Maus as a form of ethnography.'The texts are concerned with depicting the complex relationships among personal histories and larger "official" histories.'" Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have to have a source for each manifestation of postmodernism in the book to support the statement "The book uses postmodern techniques"? There is no lack of sources. A couple minutes turns up:

* this describing Maus as "postmodern memory-art"

* "postmodern attempt to address the position of second-generation survivors and the difficulties inherent in translating experiences ... into words"

* "comics ... are not intrinsically postmodern, but Spiegelman's use of the form is"

* "Framing the Past: Postmodernism and the Making of Reflective Memory in Art Spiegelman's Maus

* "obviously a work in the postmodern mode"

* [a phenomenon of late twentieth-century postmodernism "Maus could be categorized as 'historiographical metafiction' ... a phenomenon of late twentieth-century postmodernism"]

How many sources is this single word going to be required to be laden with? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is, the sentence in question in the OP is not backed up by citations. And if the wiki article states that the book uses postmodern techniques, it has to state specifically which techniques, backed up by specific passages in specific citations. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So a source that states it's a postmodern work is not enough? Okay, any other hoops to jump through? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source stating that its a postmodern work is a citation that it's a postmodern work, not for anything more specific than that. Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is not always clear what is meant by "postmodern". If the article is to be useful to the reader we should be able to say something more than simply that it is "postmodern" or that it "uses postmodern techniques". How is it postmodern? In what way is it postmodern? To get back to the original question—what source supports that "the book uses postmodern techniques—most strikingly by representing Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs"? That is a full assertion. It is not enough to merely have a source supporting the first half of the sentence. The implication is that the representation of "Jews as mice" and "other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs" is "strikingly" a "postmodern technique". Is everything about this book postmodern? Perhaps it has some postmodern qualities. If so, we should specify and explain how or in what way these aspects of this book are postmodern. Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: In the body text, the wiki article states one technique of the book which is postmodern. It does not elaborate on any other techniques. That is the only postmodern technique mentioned and cited in this wiki article. Since the current consensus is that there is no current substantiation that the use of specific animals for specific groups of people is a postmodern technique, even vis-a-vis this book, I'm going to remove that part of the sentence for now. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So your solution is to remove "postmodern" entirely from the lead, despite the number of articles that call it a postmodern work? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to state that it is a postmodern work in the body text, with citations that substantiate, and then echo it in the lede, in a separate sentence. Or state in the body text that it uses postmodern techniques (plural), if you can specifically list and substantiate with a citation(s) other techniques beyond self-referencing, and then echo that in the lede in a separate sentence. Or alternatively, put the citations for it being a postmodern work in the lede (in a lede sentence that states it is a postmodern work); but whatever choice is made, the word "postmodern" and the mention of the animal symbolism shouldn't be in the same sentence because no citation has been presented that substantiates that as a specifically postmodern technique in this book. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Haw haw, but your condescension only makes your disruptiveness the worse. When you are totally aware (as you are) that there is a plethora of sources describing the book as postmodern, then removing that tidbit rather than adding the sources and improving the article is tendentiously making a WP:POINT---totally unacceptable behaviour. If you're not here to improve the article, then take your keyboard skills elsewhere. Perhaps 4chan. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey—in what ways is the book postmodern? I'm not saying it is not postmodern. I'm trying to initiate what will hopefully be a productive conversation. In what ways is "Maus" postmodern? If we can't articulate ways in which the book is postmodern, we can still tell the reader—even in the lede—that the literary critics consider the book postmodern. But I think it would be better if we explained the ways in which some see the book as being postmodern. Can you enumerate the ways in which the book is postmodern? Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How about you take a look through the sources and find a wording that conforms to the sources, is concise and readable, and that you find acceptable. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The potentially problematic sentence has been alleviated. No source specifically supported the assertion that the representation of "Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs" was a postmodern aspect of this book. I have seen no source supporting that and you have presented no source supportive of that assertion. It would have been irresponsible (original research) of us to assert that "The book uses postmodern techniques—most strikingly by representing Jews as mice and other Germans and Poles as cats and pigs." This is content that should be supported by a source. We should not be telling the reader something that the sources are not telling us. If you are going to argue that many sources refer to the book as being postmodern, I would counter-argue that no source that I have seen specifies the representation of groups of people as animal-types as a postmodern aspect of the book. Note that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this again: the word "postmodern" was "relieved" from the lead by an editor with a particular POV with the word and who was aware of the number of RSes that talk about the work as postmodern or postmodern aspects of the work. Address that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, if a minimal effort is made, sources can be found for the postmodernity of the animal metaphor. Here's one asserting the animal masks are one of two aspects that make Maus "inevitably" postmodern. Are either of you willing to put in even this minimal effort? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That source is a conference paper. Here's the published version. I'm not sure how reputable that journal is, so there may be more reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that sources are abundant, yet these two don't appear to be willing to look at any of them (even when linked to). Take a look at Bus Stop's question: "in what ways is the book postmodern?" The answer is to google it, FFS. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking for sources but am going round in circles a bit (probably due to my lack of familiarity with literary studies). This source (and the paragraph ending "That, in 2015, the debate is still ongoing attests to the critical importance and aesthetic, historical and political complexities raised by Maus" in particular) suggests that characterising Maus as postmodern is still subject to some debate. This is quite an accessible read, incidentally. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"What is postmodern" is one of those perennial debates that more or less defines postmodernism. There are those who will assert, for instance, that Gravity's Rainbow is the ultimate example of a postmodern novel, while others will deny it's postmodern at all. The fact is that "postmodern" creeps up with great frequency in writings on Maus and many sources define it as "postmodern". We don't get to ignore that just because it doesn't fit our personal defintion of "postmodern". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about our definition. It's just that the article states that Maus is postmodern as a fact, when there seems to be at least some debate about how best to characterise it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't define the book as postmodern, it says that Spiegelman "takes a postmodern approach" and used to say "The book uses postmodern techniques" until Softlavender unilaterally removed that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, it states that the book takes a postmodern approach as fact, rather than saying that that is an interpretation of it. Anyway, this talk page is too WP:BATTLEGROUND for me, and I don't like the tone of the replies I'm getting when I'm just trying to give the perspective of someone not previously involved in the disagreement, so I'm taking it off my watchlist. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

IPA

An editor has asked on the Help Desk if an IPA pronunciation could be added to the article. Is there someone here who knows the correct pronunciation and IPA well enough to add that? Dismas|^(talk) 21:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've added an endnote. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation of "mouse" is /mʌʊs/ or /mɛʉs/ in Canadian English, with the Canadian raising. I pronounce the title of the book as it's described here, which is a different way from the way I pronounce "mouse." Roches (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FAR

I appreciate the fact that Maus article has been featured on the front page of Wikipedia (August 22, 2015) "as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" (end of quote) with over 20,000 views on that day, but I am (and have been) troubled by the way it is written and I am thinking of nominating if for WP:FAR. Before nomination though, per our policy guideline, I would like to raise issues at talk page of the article (end of quote). I have made only one edit to this article in its entire editing history by quoting a reliable history book from Google explaining the concentration camp labour. I was reverted with a single click. This, nevertheless, has sparked a flurry of activity on my talk page at User talk:Poeticbent#Maus revert. Our discussion went nowhere, and I think I understand why. I also understand why the article is a target of enraged IP user attacks, such as the one from yesterday.

The WP:REDFLAG boils down to 'the pig insult' of course. However, the way it is being handled by the article authors is but a small sample of serious problems with neutrality going far beyond racism. The whole article (including its so-called criticism) is a straight forward tribute to the subject, in conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Maus, the graphic novel, is devoted to a single real-life episode from the vast mass of material about the Holocaust in occupied Poland. It has been fictionalized similar to any historical period drama, and that's where similarities end. Huge parts of this article are devoted to Maus 'synopsis' and 'background'. The background of Maus of course ... not the historical background of the Sosnowiec Ghetto where the events take place. The article say little to nothing about the real Nazi German language of propaganda, where 'the pig insult' originated. – The Nazis did not refer to the Jewish people as mice in Der Ewige Jude; they used to say "Sie vermehren sich wie die Ratten" in their hateful plots; a chaotic mess of rats. The author of the novel can say whatever he wants ... he can call Polish people pigs, however, here in Wikipedia we cannot do that. Maus was produced during Cold War, decades ahead of the collapse of the Soviet empire followed by all the revelations about the communist crimes. There's nothing about the Cold War stereotypes in this article, disseminated in some American communities attempting to come to grips with their past and their public image. The article is written in a historical vacuum. Poeticbent talk 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The author ... can call Polish people pigs, however, here in Wikipedia we cannot do that—and of course never do. Further commenters need to keep this bizarre comment in mind when addressing what Poeticbent has written above.

Here's Poeticbent's edit that I reverted, which includes an extremely devious rewording of "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping" with no source to support it, as well as an extremely poor kludge of an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Here is my explanation for the revert at Poeticbent's talk page, with an offer to find a way to deal with the issue in a Wikipedia-appropriate manner. The "discussion" quickly devolved into threats and accusations, and no attempt on Poeticbent's part to find any kind of workable solution whatsoever.

Here's an interesting article by Tomasz Łysak that could be used to beef up the Polish angle—but of course should not be allowed to eat up the article. There's already a paragraph in the article dealing with these issues—including accusations of Spiegelman employing an "ethnic slur"—of which Poeticbent seems blissfully unaware (I'll AGF and call it an oversight). Poeticbent needs to keep in mind issues of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:WEIGHT, etc, which the editor seems almost committed to violating. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I would love to see editors other than Curly Turkey, involved in bringing this entry up to an FA level, contribute to this thread also. However, in the last 10 days nobody else said anything at all. – There is only a continuation of the same belittling of virtually everything I said, repeated by Curly Turkey on my talk page, and coupled with the laundry list of internal links in capital letters, with no relevance to the subject of my inquiry. I have already alerted Curly Turkey to the fact that there's absolutely nothing in LaCapra about the quote-unquote "little stereotyping among the Poles" As a result Curly Turkey himself removed that line from the article, nevertheless, he chose to continue with the insults (quote): "bizarre comment" ... "an extremely devious rewording" ... "an extremely poor kludge" ... and so on. Please compare this with the user's own statement on my talk page (quote): I may have misinterpreted the source ... etc. Everything being taken into account, the complete absence of historical background to the Holocaust with special consideration given to the Sosnowiec Ghetto in occupied Poland with its courageous uprising, makes this article unbalanced and un-encyclopaedic. It is a tribute to Maus comic strip, with all voices of reason, pointing out to its graphic representation 'inspired by Goebbels', immediately dubbed by carefully selected commentators as radical right-wing. Clearly, the problems cannot be resolved here. Therefore, the next step in the WP:FAR process is only the remaining option, because the article is not neutral at all, with the sections on the Maus political impact abroad and surrounding controversy decidedly substandard. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• So nominate it for FAR already—it's clear you were never here for discussion. Jesus, you come off as exactly the type that Tomasz Łysak criticizes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• I dont see any serious problems expressed here just some OR and "I dont like that". A serious concern would have to show that the article misrepresents what reliable sources about the specific topic of the article write. That would require presenting some sources in support of specific concerns, not vague discomfort with the Spiegelmans artistic choices.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maus. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140226061141/http://dailyfreepress.com/2000/09/28/cartoonist-sued-for-1-5-million/ to http://dailyfreepress.com/2000/09/28/cartoonist-sued-for-1-5-million/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111005042229/http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=833 to http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=833
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120207232502/http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=838 to http://www.toutenbd.com/article.php3?id_article=838
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120116035002/http://www.buckslib.org:80/OneBook/Maus/unit2student.htm to http://www.buckslib.org/OneBook/Maus/unit2student.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Strange edits

Josve05a and Jasonanaggie, can you please explain why the two of you are repeatedly making edits like this and this to this article despite the obvious objection of other editors? It seems that you are running a script on the page which produces a misleading edit summary ("Tagging 3 dead links") when you are indeed doing more than tagging dead links. I don't even know why the script makes such edits, as it's taking a direct link and linking it to a redirect. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the result of the Disambiguation DABFix Program. If you try it out on the page you will see what happens when someone gets this article as a random page to fix. It is not really the fault of the editor as you cannot see the entire page in the script that fixes the pages.Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you are responsible for the edits made by the Jasonanaggie account, yes, it is the fault of the editor. For mindlessly running scripts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see my response here. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129013723/http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_1/witek/ to http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_1/witek/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427023810/http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners_pastwinners.php to http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners_pastwinners.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160315021003/http://www.harveyawards.org/previous-awards-nominees/1992-harvey-awards/ to http://www.harveyawards.org/previous-awards-nominees/1992-harvey-awards/

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) 12:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation into French

Hello, fellow wikipedians !
I am working on a French translation from the featured article. Would you please be so kind as to help me with a phrase?
In the section "International publication", in Poland, the caption under Piotr Bikont reads : he set up a publishing house in 2001 to put out a Polish edition of Maus in the face of protest. The text reads: Piotr Bikont, a journalist for Gazeta Wyborcza, set up his own publishing house to publish Maus in Polish in 2001.
There are several meaning for "set up". Did Bikont trick the publisher to have them release Maus? Or am I totally wrong?
Regards, --Bédévore 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bédévore (talk • contribs)

• Bédévore: "Set up" in this context means "established"—he started his own publishing house. Good luck with the translation! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
I am currently working on the French side for the sections International publication & Reception & legacy.

• Maybe you'd like to add in the article that, in March-May 2012, the Centre Georges Pompidou organized a retrospective about Maus and Art Spiegelman : « Art Spiegelman : CO-MIX - une rétrospective de bandes dessinées, graphisme et débris divers ». The library of the Museum ( fr:Bibliothèque publique d'information) offers a guide about it : Dossier pédagogique, mars 2012 - Lire en ligne (access date : 2018 january 25th).
• There's an inaccurate piece of information in Awards ; the prize from "Témoignage chrétien" is awarded by a weekly newspaper. The prize is called "Prix Résistance TC" - and as far as I know, there's no such thing as "Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award". Such awards are granted by religious associations or newspapers.

Regards, --Bédévore 10:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed "Category:Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award"—I don't know where it came from. It's not mentioned in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, on the French side extra information was added about reception in France. Among other things, maybe you'd like to know there was an exhibition in the French Mémorial de la Shoah about Shoah et Bande dessinée (Shoah and Comics) in January 2017 and it included works from Spiegelman. Should anyone be willing to translate it into the English article, here is the mention. About sources : Le Monde published several news items about Maus and it is considered as a reliable reference among French newspapers. Regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

En janvier 2017, le Mémorial de la Shoah organise l'exposition Shoah et bande dessinée où figure, entre autres, le travail d'Art Spiegelman · .

External links

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm per wp:ext - one was not a link at all; unofficial study guides, etc." Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The view of Canadian Polish Congress

re: . I can't say I am impressed by any organization who still uses docs (c'mon, it's 21st century already). Anyway, what we have here is a lengthy, ~90 pages long document by anonymous author, published by a small NGO, the Canadian Polish Congress. The question is - is it WP:Undue and WP:PRIMARY? Well, it is relevant - the article already has several paragraph on criticisms, and so one sentence that is clearly attributed to another critic doesn't seem that undue to me. I also do not think this is WP:PRIMARY; it is an analysis, so rather a SECONDARY type of a source. I don't see how it is different from some other sources already cited, for example by American Council for Polish Culture (written by Peter Obst, an adjunct lecturer in Polish Cultural History and Foreign Literature at LaSalle University, except the ACPC entry is non-anonymous (and easier to access than the doc file...).

Considering this is FA, I'd rather keep the referencing standards high, so I'll also point out that we may want to discuss the reliability of this self-published essay from the homepage of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Vancouver Island University . I am also unsure if Alondon is a reliable publisher, whatever it is ( seems rotten anyway...).

Anyway, I don't see why the reference to CPS should be that problematic - it is no worse then several others that are already present here. Through in the spirit of keeping standards at FA-levels, and because the CPS entry doesn't seem to really add anything new, the best outcome would be to remove the low quality reference to Johnson and close the matter at that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The group is best known (at least to me, via Wikipedia) for publishing the works by the fringe author "Mark Paul", which appears to be a nom de plume since nothing is known about him. KPK is an undue, primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

They KPK has protested against portrayals of the infamous Kielce pogrom in theater, asserting lack of Polish involvement in this and other massacres (counter to established historical sources), and advocated stressing incidents of "Jews killing Poles". According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing". The following appears in one of their documents on their website:

While the gathering of accounts is still in its infancy, like many aspects of wartime Polish-Jewish relations, a fairly clear outline emerges of some sordid and shameful aspects of the conduct of Jews vis-à-vis their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule. It is an immensely important story that has never before been told and one that redefines the history of wartime Polish-Jewish relations. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945.

Asserting Jewish collaboration with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany who themselves (according to the KPK) were allies in 1939-1945 (our World War II and Holocaust articles would seem to differ with this account). This is a WP:FRINGE organization - particularly the Toronto wing of the KPK (from which the document on Maus was taken) - and it should not be tolerated here in Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Could you provide a verifiable (hyperlinked) source for claiming that Canadian Polish Congress is " According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing""? Or is CPC-Toronto different from CPC? A splinter organization, perhaps? CPC itself doesn't seem to raise any red flags in my research, at least so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The citation I provided is fully verifiable. However - here is a - link - it is behind an academic paywall. The KPK Toronto wing is more aggressive than the rest of the organization (however, I'll note that many of the regional chapters seem fairly defunct - the Toronto branch is fairly active) - they have an independent website and they seem to promote their own agenda (e.g. Paul is only hosted on KPK Toronto). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Johnston 2001; replaced it in one instance, and simply removed the cited statement in another.

So much has been written about Maus that it can be hard to decide what's due weight in many cases. If CPC is DUE, then aren't any of the thousands of other commentaries? What makes the CPC source particularly notable? Does it say something particularly new and substantial? Do other sources cite it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I agree. While I think CPC is reliable (for a mid-sized NGO, there is no rule we can't cite right-wing anti-communist organizations, and those seem to be in-passing descriptions anyway) I don't think that the source raises to the level of quality for other sources here. For example, ACPC source is at least attributable to a minor academic, but CPC source is anonymous, and that is a bit of a red flag. Who wrote it? If they chose not to attribute it, it doesn't bode well. And the source doesn't say anything we don't say already, after all (that portrayal of Poles as pigs is seen as offensive - yep, we say this with better refs). So personally I have no desire right now to restore that ref, through truth be told, I would expect we could beef that paragraph with more sources - at the very least I would expect that a number of articles in Polish mainstream press would say something similar, and we do already cite a lot of news articles.

PS. What about that Alondon ref? Can it be rescued? Seems like it is non-English anyway... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Alondon source is Hebrew? What was it about, and why would we want to include it? Honestly, the article could use a couple of spinoffs—one on critical analysis, another on controversies, and another on international reception. A lot of stuff that would be way out of scope here would be just at home in such sub-articles. I'm not volunteering to start them, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping User:Icewhiz: Could you comment on reliability of Alondon, and check if this links still works (appears rotten) and can the link be rescued, assuming the source is reliable and valuable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I rescued the link, and added a cn. Alondon is an ex-pat Israel magazine/website in London. The citation doesn't support the first sentence (1990 publishing by Kinneret) - though the sentence is correct. It does support the second sentence (lack of success, only first book went out) - which is also probably correct. Tzdaka himself is a somewhat established writer - he wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth from London. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation into French

Hello, fellow wikipedians !
I am working on a French translation from the featured article. Would you please be so kind as to help me with a phrase?
In the section "International publication", in Poland, the caption under Piotr Bikont reads : he set up a publishing house in 2001 to put out a Polish edition of Maus in the face of protest. The text reads: Piotr Bikont, a journalist for Gazeta Wyborcza, set up his own publishing house to publish Maus in Polish in 2001.
There are several meaning for "set up". Did Bikont trick the publisher to have them release Maus? Or am I totally wrong?
Regards, --Bédévore 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bédévore (talk • contribs)

• Bédévore: "Set up" in this context means "established"—he started his own publishing house. Good luck with the translation! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
I am currently working on the French side for the sections International publication & Reception & legacy.

• Maybe you'd like to add in the article that, in March-May 2012, the Centre Georges Pompidou organized a retrospective about Maus and Art Spiegelman : « Art Spiegelman : CO-MIX - une rétrospective de bandes dessinées, graphisme et débris divers ». The library of the Museum ( fr:Bibliothèque publique d'information) offers a guide about it : Dossier pédagogique, mars 2012 - Lire en ligne (access date : 2018 january 25th).
• There's an inaccurate piece of information in Awards ; the prize from "Témoignage chrétien" is awarded by a weekly newspaper. The prize is called "Prix Résistance TC" - and as far as I know, there's no such thing as "Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award". Such awards are granted by religious associations or newspapers.

Regards, --Bédévore 10:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed "Category:Angoulême International Comics Festival Religious award"—I don't know where it came from. It's not mentioned in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, on the French side extra information was added about reception in France. Among other things, maybe you'd like to know there was an exhibition in the French Mémorial de la Shoah about Shoah et Bande dessinée (Shoah and Comics) in January 2017 and it included works from Spiegelman. Should anyone be willing to translate it into the English article, here is the mention. About sources : Le Monde published several news items about Maus and it is considered as a reliable reference among French newspapers. Regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

En janvier 2017, le Mémorial de la Shoah organise l'exposition Shoah et bande dessinée où figure, entre autres, le travail d'Art Spiegelman · .

External links

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm per wp:ext - one was not a link at all; unofficial study guides, etc." Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The view of Canadian Polish Congress

re: . I can't say I am impressed by any organization who still uses docs (c'mon, it's 21st century already). Anyway, what we have here is a lengthy, ~90 pages long document by anonymous author, published by a small NGO, the Canadian Polish Congress. The question is - is it WP:Undue and WP:PRIMARY? Well, it is relevant - the article already has several paragraph on criticisms, and so one sentence that is clearly attributed to another critic doesn't seem that undue to me. I also do not think this is WP:PRIMARY; it is an analysis, so rather a SECONDARY type of a source. I don't see how it is different from some other sources already cited, for example by American Council for Polish Culture (written by Peter Obst, an adjunct lecturer in Polish Cultural History and Foreign Literature at LaSalle University, except the ACPC entry is non-anonymous (and easier to access than the doc file...).

Considering this is FA, I'd rather keep the referencing standards high, so I'll also point out that we may want to discuss the reliability of this self-published essay from the homepage of Ian Johnston, a retired instructor (now a Research Associate) at Vancouver Island University . I am also unsure if Alondon is a reliable publisher, whatever it is ( seems rotten anyway...).

Anyway, I don't see why the reference to CPS should be that problematic - it is no worse then several others that are already present here. Through in the spirit of keeping standards at FA-levels, and because the CPS entry doesn't seem to really add anything new, the best outcome would be to remove the low quality reference to Johnson and close the matter at that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The group is best known (at least to me, via Wikipedia) for publishing the works by the fringe author "Mark Paul", which appears to be a nom de plume since nothing is known about him. KPK is an undue, primary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

They KPK has protested against portrayals of the infamous Kielce pogrom in theater, asserting lack of Polish involvement in this and other massacres (counter to established historical sources), and advocated stressing incidents of "Jews killing Poles". According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing". The following appears in one of their documents on their website:

While the gathering of accounts is still in its infancy, like many aspects of wartime Polish-Jewish relations, a fairly clear outline emerges of some sordid and shameful aspects of the conduct of Jews vis-à-vis their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule. It is an immensely important story that has never before been told and one that redefines the history of wartime Polish-Jewish relations. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945.

Asserting Jewish collaboration with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany who themselves (according to the KPK) were allies in 1939-1945 (our World War II and Holocaust articles would seem to differ with this account). This is a WP:FRINGE organization - particularly the Toronto wing of the KPK (from which the document on Maus was taken) - and it should not be tolerated here in Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Could you provide a verifiable (hyperlinked) source for claiming that Canadian Polish Congress is " According to Piotr Wróbel (chair of Polish studies at UToronto) they are "aggressively right-wing""? Or is CPC-Toronto different from CPC? A splinter organization, perhaps? CPC itself doesn't seem to raise any red flags in my research, at least so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The citation I provided is fully verifiable. However - here is a - link - it is behind an academic paywall. The KPK Toronto wing is more aggressive than the rest of the organization (however, I'll note that many of the regional chapters seem fairly defunct - the Toronto branch is fairly active) - they have an independent website and they seem to promote their own agenda (e.g. Paul is only hosted on KPK Toronto). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Johnston 2001; replaced it in one instance, and simply removed the cited statement in another.

So much has been written about Maus that it can be hard to decide what's due weight in many cases. If CPC is DUE, then aren't any of the thousands of other commentaries? What makes the CPC source particularly notable? Does it say something particularly new and substantial? Do other sources cite it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I agree. While I think CPC is reliable (for a mid-sized NGO, there is no rule we can't cite right-wing anti-communist organizations, and those seem to be in-passing descriptions anyway) I don't think that the source raises to the level of quality for other sources here. For example, ACPC source is at least attributable to a minor academic, but CPC source is anonymous, and that is a bit of a red flag. Who wrote it? If they chose not to attribute it, it doesn't bode well. And the source doesn't say anything we don't say already, after all (that portrayal of Poles as pigs is seen as offensive - yep, we say this with better refs). So personally I have no desire right now to restore that ref, through truth be told, I would expect we could beef that paragraph with more sources - at the very least I would expect that a number of articles in Polish mainstream press would say something similar, and we do already cite a lot of news articles.

PS. What about that Alondon ref? Can it be rescued? Seems like it is non-English anyway... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Alondon source is Hebrew? What was it about, and why would we want to include it? Honestly, the article could use a couple of spinoffs—one on critical analysis, another on controversies, and another on international reception. A lot of stuff that would be way out of scope here would be just at home in such sub-articles. I'm not volunteering to start them, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping User:Icewhiz: Could you comment on reliability of Alondon, and check if this links still works (appears rotten) and can the link be rescued, assuming the source is reliable and valuable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I rescued the link, and added a cn. Alondon is an ex-pat Israel magazine/website in London. The citation doesn't support the first sentence (1990 publishing by Kinneret) - though the sentence is correct. It does support the second sentence (lack of success, only first book went out) - which is also probably correct. Tzdaka himself is a somewhat established writer - he wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth from London. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Six paragraphs for something that happened two days ago?

Without regard to the nature of the controversy or issues, six paragraphs in an entire new section for an event that occurred two days ago in a very small school district seems way out of proportion, and smacks of recentism. It seems excessive to me. The ban will almost certainly be overturned; shouldn't the encyclopedia take a more measured approach to an ongoing event? I feel compelled to direct the reader to read my first sentence again. Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the length feels disproportionate. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm working my way through it, trimming unnecessary verbiage, over-citing, etc - haven't really condensed it much, but it's better than nothing. Anastrophe (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need every single remotely connected person's reaction ... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The initial statement is poorly considered. I would urge the editor to read the massive RS coverage of this, to understand why robust coverage here is appropriate. Or to look at the number of views of this article. 80,000 yesterday. Please look and compare that to the views of the Donald Trump (21k) and Joe Biden (38k) articles yesterday. Please consider how wp works, and the objective embodied in wp practices and policy of consideration of RS coverage and of interest to readers.

Massive RS coverage. Way more than enough to satisfy our notability criteria under GNG even for an entire article on Wikipedia. No question. And a six-paragraph article would be somehow .. too long?

And yes, it's six paragraphs in this very interesting full article on a Pulitzer Prize winning book. Does someone think that these six paragraphs are somehow just swallowing up the rest of the article?

Because .. no. It's not. Do I have calculate just how small of a percentage footprint it has to demonstrate that point?

I've read your title again. The ban did not "happen two days ago," as you suggest. Not that it would matter if it did. If an event that happened yesterday prompted 2-4x the views of the articles on our last two presidents, it would - to me quite obviously - be deserving of robust coverage.

Also, your prediction that the decision will be overturned is interesting in a bloggy sort of way. But we (I, certainly) do not know that to be the case. And certainly would not diminish this article on the basis of that crystal-ball thinking. Because I don't think there is a basis for that belief.

As to Eddie's comment on what we "need" - of course we don't "need" anything on Wikipedia. Not one article on Wikipedia, nor any paragraph nor sentence nor category is needed. Nothing at all. But this is appropriate.

Look at the Superman article. The most viewed article last month. Regarding a just-released movie. Please read it, and tell me which material in it you do not view as "necessary." And what six sentence you wish to delete. There's nothing about need at all in this exercise called Wikipedia.

As to whether it is "proportionate" ... it is beyond cavil that it is proportionate to an article of 100K bytes. I'm stumped if I have to explain why this is my view. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Coverage has not been "massive". Hyperbole doesn't substitute for proportionate coverage and policy-based article improvement. It's made a flurry of news. Such things tend to pass rapidly. This is core problem with WP - recentism. Overstating a matter in the broader context doesn't make the article or WP better.

As far as the rest of the passive-aggressive commentary, I'm not particularly interested. As it stands, this tempest in a teapot requires far less space to cover it appropriately and proportionally. Wikipedia isn't twitter, and shouldn't be driven by outrage politics. The long view should be primary. Anastrophe (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Coverage has indeed been massive. Just the coverage of the past 24 articles has been many times what would be needed under GNG to support the notability of an entire article. And the same with the coverage yesterday - all by itself. And the same with the coverage the day before - all by itself. For the week, it overwhelming, and from all over the world. That's of course what had driven the fact that each day this article has attracted more readership that the heavily read articles on each of our last two presidents .. combined. That's not hyperbole. I point to wp:gng and to RS coverage (you can find it, and non-RS coverage, in the links I supplied to you) and to views that you can see for yourself the statistics of. Let me know if you don't know how to check that, and I will walk you through it. The fluff fact-based subjective unsupported opinion is yours. Not mine.

Recentism, one view though not a guideline or policy, refers not to all events that are recent. Recentism refers rather to an event that might hardly be remembered a month later. Are you seriously contending that this will not be remembered in a month?

And I'm referring to wp guidelines and policy and statistics. I'm not crystal-balling -- you are. You are bringing up Twitter? I've never tweeted. And never read a tweet, that wasn't embodied in an article. This is about wp. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We certainly have different definitions of "massive", which I unreservedly reiterate is hyperbole. Coverage has been significant and notable; I haven't suggested that the matter not be in the article. Bursts of traffic are expected when news is made. Counting google search results isn't dispositive of anything. I am indeed seriously contending that this will not be front page news in a month. Recentism isn't about whether something is "remembered"; it is whether coverage right now of notable events is in proportion to their overall significance.

I've made no 'crystal ball' declarations. You've opined, I've opined. I brought up twitter because you used a blog as a source for Gaiman's tweet. If you can find an actual reliable source that takes note of his tweet, by all means, add it, I've no objection at all. The problem is that the section was rife with duplicate cites, unreliable cites, and overcites. It also had bad grammar and construction. I still consider it too long for the meaningfulness of this matter at this time. Outrage is a dime a dozen. Lets see how much this matter is in the forefront of news coverage in a week, let alone a month. Anastrophe (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the ban isn't relevant enough to have its own section (not as vital as the other sections). The six paragraphs can be summarized in just three: explanation of the ban; opinions by author and others; and sales. Another issue is that the section is overquoting when it is not needed. So, my suggestion would be moving the section to a new subsection under "Reception and legacy", summarizing it as explained above and reducing usage of quotes. (If three paragraphs is too much, we could write two by merging the opinions and the sales in just one, or write all of it in a single paragraph, like in Streisand effect#By other organizations.) ObserveOwl (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The ban clearly DOES warrant a section. Before the ban the book was not in Amazon's top 1,000 books, after the ban it hit #1. That is by far the most notable thing about the book. The ban clearly has more than enough sourcing that it could be kept as an independent article. It is implausible to suggest deleting a section that could itself stand as an article. Alsee (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Alsee. The voluminous and wide-ranging coverage in reputable major media outlets of the ban and its effects are more than enough to warrant its own section (though I believe it's bit too soon to create a standalone article). A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is by far the most notable thing about the book. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The book has played an important role in comics due to its academic attention. It has won several awards, it is included in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and a recent sudden growth in popularity is the most notable part of the article? Sure, it is all over the news, but I still believe this piece of information is closely related to the book's legacy and it should be a subsection of "Reception and legacy" (for instance, the awards table is a very, very important part of the article and it is a subsection of "Reception and legacy" as it should be). ObserveOwl (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So the same people who want "critical race theory" out of public schools, ban a book about the holocaust (gee, I wonder why), causing worldwide backlash and condemnation which is broadly covered by reliable sources and you're trying to argue that's not notable enough to warrant more than a single paragraph hidden under a general heading? The ban should have a separate article - it's one of the most disturbing and alarming things to happen in the US since that event that happened 13 months ago. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say the ban isn't notable - I was trying to argue that the book had already got a lot of recognition before the ban (someone was saying the ban was the most notable thing of the book). The ban is actually quite notable to me, I was impressed by the extensive coverage by reputable sources, and it could even be covered by a new separate article. I see that the section was further expanded after my first comment here, so yes, it now should be obviously more than three paragraphs unlike what I said earlier. My point is, the ban is a good example of the book's reception and legacy and therefore it should be part of the "Reception and legacy" section. According to Merriam Webster, the word "reception" is similar to "response", "reaction". The new section shows the response/reaction by those schools, and the recent spike in popularity also shows the interest (the reaction) by other people. I just think it's more organized to include it in the reception section. Also, it didn't happen 13 months ago, and I don't think it is that "disturbing and alarming". ObserveOwl (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if this article only mentions the ban as part of a reception and legacy section, it doesn't change the fact that it needs a separate article at this point. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind including a mention of this on List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, Antisemitism in the United States and Fascism in the United States. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Section moved

Without making any change to the content, I have moved the whole section about the School Board decision to be a subsection under "Reception and legacy", which I suggest is the appropriate place for it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor insists that this change, to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for how to write articles in a logical order, is attempting to hide the text about the School Board decision. That is irrational. The material has not been deleted; the section title has not been deleted (and still appears in the Table of Contents). Top level sections are about the nature of the book itself: this section is a reaction to the book, so it goes in the Reactions section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Excessive attention to recent Tennessee library controversy

The fact that a large fraction of the articles current prose and an entire section is dedicated to just this WP:RECENT controversy bugs me. This is excessive and it only deserves maybe a paragraph at most incorporated as part of the publication or reception section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps the way forward is to split the article so that this controversy has its own article, summarised in this one. Like Statue of Edward Colston. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This recent controversy needs to be kept in long-term perspective with the numerous other Book censorship in the United States controversies. I mean, how many times has Harry Potter been banned from American school libraries and how much prose do we dedicate them individually? All of the Harry Potter related ones are covered under a single article, Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, and I am not sure there is enough to say about this dispute to justify a separate article wholly dedicated to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Having thought about this further, I would not be opposed to a List of book censorship controversies in the United States or equivalent where this could be included alongside controversies related to other books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it censorship. No pages have been cut out or panels obliterated or images pixelated. Is there not a better list? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"book banning" maybe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"List of book censorship controversies in the United States" Why? We already have Book censorship in the United States, and it has a sourced list of banned books. Dimadick (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparing this to Harry Potter is a false equivalence. The bannings of Harry Potter don't come anywhere near generating the amount of backlash and condemnation as the banning of Maus. Christian moral panic over books promoting magic, does not come anywhere near the level of holocaust denial. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the article is the obvious solution here. The widespread coverage and the unanimous condemnation by notable figures makes this incident too important for it to be given a single paragraph buried in a much larger text. In addition to how big a red flag banning books on the holocaust is, this ban is part of a much larger far right attack on public education, such as the astroturfed moral panic surrounding CRT. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources give it "excessive attention" and for a good reason. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The allegedly 'reliable' sources use the word 'ban'. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• that’s a fairly absurd substitution of an individual editors subjective view for the massive international robust coverage of the subject, leading the book to rise over 1000 positions to number one on the Amazon bestseller list, I’m leading the article to have tens of thousands more views than the articles of LeBron James and of the president for a number of days running. Really, absurd view. We care more about RS coverage than about any one or two or three individual editors for years. I wonder why someone would try to hide this, in the face of all that, and while I assume good faith, that does speak to some lack of understanding of the goal of Wikipedia end of the importance of RS coverage. 174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of refs from ends of sentences

Some editor is deleting refs from the ends of sentences. Moving the refs further down in a paragraph. Even when the sentence contains one or more quotes.

That's unhelpful. The reason is simple. Sentences get moved around. Paragraphs get split. Those normal and common events can orphan the ref from the sentence that it supports. Which is most unhelpful.

In contrast, and to be distinguished, is the moving of refs mid-sentence to the end of the sentence. That is generally helpful and to be appreciated. The location of those refs serves to break up readability. And the movement of the ref does not suffer from the above problems.

It's too difficult now for me to fix the problem the editor created. But I would request that he consider this note. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your opinions on the matter are noted. The text before I began working with it was rife with broken references and duplicate references, and considerable over-citing. As well, random sentences pertaining to other matters had been inserted into the middle of unrelated paragraphs, lending a completely disjointed reading. I copyedited what there was to improve readability, eliminate broken references, remove duplicate references, and remove unreliable sources. Any modestly capable editor should have no difficulty moving refs should there be a need to move text; at this time, I don't see anything requiring that. The section does still need considerable trimming; it is a bloviation right now about 'breaking news', which is unencyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• You don’t understand that the RS coverage is far more important than your desire to hide this - it led to the book being #1 on the best seller list of Amazon, over 1,000 places, and is not the fleeting breaking news phenomenon you oddly would liken it to. You really might benefit from reading up what distinguishes an unremarkable event of momentary interest from this one. You don’t seem tk get it. It’s in notnews and other pages at the project. Really way off base. I think. No reason to seek to hide this. It’s covered by top RSs the world over. 174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spanish translations

According to a predatory journal there are two Spanish translations.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand that comment. Perhaps you can explain.174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing.

Parody does not belong under reception, as a subsection. Obviously. That’s illogical. Unclear what thinking is driving that edit warring. And the removal decades later - driving articles around the world in top RSS since January is not reception either. And it is so important it deserves to be a level higher. It drove this bill over 1000 points on Amazon best seller list to #1. It attracted articles in every continent, in top RSS, the world over. It drive readership btw to 80,000 a day of this article - it’s absurd to then act like a Tennessee county es board member and seek to bury it from view. What possible appropriate thinking could drive that behavior escapes me. Someone is seeking to bury it for some peculiar reason. And in my view that is disruptive. Though I gather some Tennesseans would disagree - but they are being mocked by the world. It’s not a look the project is looking for, because it is not in keeping with the goals of the project to seek to hide something the RSs are covering robustly. 174.198.12.200 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Parody is a type of reception, I see no lack of logic. You need to explain.

Banning is also a type of reception.

It seems evident that you don't understand how levels work in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout but to summarise: the top level is the subject itself; the second levels give more details about that subject; the third level gives more details about that second level. The fact that a school board banned the book is not an aspect of the book itself, so it doesn't go at level two. It is one of the reactions to the book and so it goes as a subsection of the 'Receptions' section.

Your suggestion that anyone is trying to hide the banning makes no sense. It appears clearly in the table of contents, in fact it stands out in it. The article is not especially long, so it is very easy to find it. You might have had a point of it had been hived off to a daughter article (like Statue of Edward Colston was hived off from Edward Colston in a similarly high profile case), but it has not.

So please stop changing the section levels because your changes will not persist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Spiegelman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Maus → Maus (graphic novel)Maus (graphic novel)
• Maus (disambiguation) → Maus

– WP:NOPRIMARY situation. Panzer VIII Maus is often referred to as "Maus" and gets more page views. Comparative page views. page views (people with surname Maus) Schierbecker (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. Schierbecker (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Graphic novels has been notified of this discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Jewish history has been notified of this discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is the only article called Maus, so no ambiguity arises. Your case is undermined by your decision to combine August Maus, Codey Maus, Guido Maus, Jacques Maus, John Maus, Julius Maus, Marcela Maus, Octave Maus and Rodger Maus into a single page view search.
  A disambiguation article is of the form name (alpha), name (beta), name (gamma), etc., so it would have just one entry and a large see also. The issue is readily resolved with a {{distinguish}}. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is based on the premise that readers aren't looking for people named some way by looking up those names. This I'm afraid isn't verifiable - rather, we know that the average English reader habitually refers to people by their name without always using the naturally disambiguated form, and this is especially true for surnames. So these are not mere partial title matches, rather they indicate real-world ambiguity that our navigation should accomodate. We should rather ponder how common are all of these various uses, and how significant they are, per WP:PTOPIC. On usage, I don't like the daily view of statistics - let's take a longer, monthly view and look at the big items mainly, like this. The overall interest in the novel is comparable to Panzer and John alone, so that already puts in doubt the idea that there would be a primary topic by usage, because the standard is quite a bit higher than that. In turn, it would be interesting to see a comparison of the long-term significance of these topics. Does any of them stand out in a way that it's worth short-circuiting the readers to it rather than presenting the ambiguity? (On the same note, we should also ponder long-term significance of the long tail, too.) --Joy (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  More fundamentally, there are many many articles that have names that could be confused with other articles. That is precisely why we need and have the templates {{about}} and {{distinguish}}. This is exactly such a case. Thus, by (sensibly) improving the {{about}} hatnote to explicitly include the tank, Schierbecker has resolved the issue and made this debate moot (in the US sense). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ... and the "long tail" is handled by otheruses in the {{about}} template. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm still not seeing a coherent rationale for why Maus: A Survivor's Tale needs to be at "Maus" and push the others back behind the hatnote. That's one possible solution, certainly, but it doesn't render the debate moot. --Joy (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The title of the book is Maus. That's it. That is what is on the spine. A survivor's tale is a sub-title barely visible through the cover art and doesn't even appear on the fly-leaf. The volume titles (my father bleeds history and and here my troubles began) are far more evident. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  That part is understood already, the part I'm asking about is a comparison of the long-term significance of the subject matters. Why does the novel have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term (WP:PTOPIC) such as the tank or the people like the musician? --Joy (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this is clearly the page most people are looking for when they ask for the Maus page. How do we know? Because the views of the disambiguation page are less than 1/40th of the views of this page. If people were landing here when looking for some other Maus, then we would expect a much large percentage clicking through to disambiguation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

1 in 40 people clicking through to the dab page is astronomical considering most readers don't have the patience to read dab pages. Schierbecker (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't know that 1/40 are clicking through to disambiguation, as it's not the only way to reach the disambiguation page. We only know that it's less than 1/40, not how much less. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

With an organic interest of 42k incoming views per month for the novel, it's really impossible for any hatnote traffic comparison to look good, but that doesn't necessarily have to imply that the titles wouldn't work well the other way around. We know from experience that when we move even popular articles, their traffic largely moves along nicely with them. The real question should be - would showing ambiguity in a different way when someone just types in "Maus" in the search box be beneficial, would it astonish anyone, would it risk leading any readers astray etc. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:JMF. While there obviously are other things named "Maus", this is the only thing only named "Maus", so the disambiguation is natural. JIP | Talk 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• If the graphic novel did not exist, Panzer VIII Maus would probably be called Maus. I've rarely heard it called "Panzer VIII Maus" in literature. "Panzer VIII" serves as natural disambiguation. Also it's not necessary for a title to match completely for it to be considered ambiguous. Schierbecker (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Other works seem fine using the fuller name for their page on this, and I doubt the Tank Encyclopedia or The Warfare History Network, for example, is worried about having a separate name for the graphic novel. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Tank Encyclopedia is user generated. Warfarehistorynetwork doesn't seem particularly reliable. Richard Ogorkiewicz calls it the Maus, so does George Forty Armor magazine, the official magazine of the U.S Army. "Maus" is a perfectly acceptable way to name the tank at first mention. Panzer VIII Maus does not merely just contain the word Maus. Schierbecker (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I'm certain that if the graphic novel did not exist, the tank article would still be called Panzer VIII Maus and the nickname "Maus" would redirect to it, as would Panzer VIII (which, to no-one's astonishment, is exactly what does happen). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No primary topic here. I'm a little baffled why people are rejecting the other topics based on them not having that exact title. The Panzer is certainly still a contender for being called Maus and seems to have equal or greater demand from readers and encyclopedic value.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is only one topic whose proper name is Maus. There are thousands of cases on wikipedia of articles whose names happen to contain the name of another article somewhere in the string. Do we really want to open this floodgate? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we're doing that, because that's already regulated by WP:PTM. We're only considering topics where there's actual ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence the tank is usually referred to solely as "Maus". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm Schierbecker posted some of that sort of evidence above in the threaded comments. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No primary topic by long-term significance. The tank is very definitely often referred to simply as the Maus. More commonly than not, in fact. Arguments that there is no ambiguity because this is the only article simply called Maus fail to understand Wikipedia disambiguation practices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  if it comes to long term significance, the Holocaust will stand for a very long time in history and thus so will cultural icons such as this one that attempt to convey its horrors. Boys toys from 80 years ago will fade into history and not a moment too soon. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The Holocaust itself, definitely, but this is an article about a specific novel about it, not all of Holocaust. Even if we're looking at a 'cultural icon', it's still a specific graphic novel from the 1980s that achieved extraordinary success in entering literary discourse for its genre, and has a featured article written about it, but didn't necessarily enter the general lexicon of the average English reader (that is customarily associated with primary topic status). It still seems sensible to compare it to a 1940s tank and a 2000s musician in a manner that is less off-the-cuff, as each of these seem to have some long-term significance, the latter also having a good article already. We should approach the analysis of long-term significance of all of this with a modicum of rigor. --Joy (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Boys toys from 80 years ago will fade into history and not a moment too soon. Appears to show an entirely non-neutral POV. You're clearly interested in one thing and sneer at the other. But that's just your point of view. If the one is iconic because it deals with the Holocaust then the other is iconic because it's an aspect of WWII. Both have very clear long-term significance and both are of interest to different people (or maybe in some cases the same people!). Denigrating one is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support first and alternative for second Considering those articles that are WP:RECOGNIZABLE by just the term Maus, I see there are three: the novel, the tank and the band. I do not see any argument that people with Maus as a surname are commonly recognised by their surname alone or are sufficiently notable that a comparatively significant number of people would be searching for them. Tanks are typically given a designation, a model and a model name such as Sherman or Abrams and in this case, Maus. Tanks are commonly referred to by just their model name - eg Sherman tank or just, a Sherman. Page views are telling us that there are near equal numbers landing at the page for the book and the tank and that these two articles are viewed three or more times than others. Page views are telling us that both the novel and the tank have similar views (ie the book is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the recognisable name for the tank). Unfortunately, page views do not tell us how readers arrived at the article: a google search, the quick search bar or a link. What we can say with confidence is that they did not arrive from the disambiguation page. The google search prominently points to both articles. The quick search bar is an index search and from the ten drop-down options after typing Maus only Maus appears, not Maus (disambiguation) and certainly not Panzer VIII Maus. The other nine options, such as Mauser or Mausoleum of Genghis Khan are clearly unrelated. Consequently readers using the quick search to find the tank are very likely to go via the novel's article and then use the hat-note there to land at the tank. Maus tank is a redirect but it is not revealed in the quick search until t is typed. Consequently the guidance and evidence would support the first move. However, once content has been vacated from Maus, I would propose to delete the page Maus. The rationale relates to the functioning of the quick search. Removing Maus as an option should result in Maus (graphic novel), Maus (disambiguation) and Maus tank to be revealed, without an impact on google searches (& like), the other common way of arriving at a page by a search. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we should claim no argument that John Maus is sufficiently notable to be searched under his surname when we regularly observe thousands of monthly views there, including one month in recorded history when he got over 123 thousand views (). It shouldn't be so inconceivable that all those hundreds of thousands of readers recognize the term Maus as ambiguous, even just their Wikipedia experience would have basically informed them of that.

  One thing I'd also point out is that trying to make complete conclusions based on the traffic patterns with the existing navigation layout is not necessarily a good idea. This is a lesson we've been learning over and over from examples like the recent one at Talk:Charlotte, where we observed an apparent 'flip' of reader interest once we changed our navigation, and the extent of this couldn't really be predicted from any confident reading of the previous layout's statistics.

  Most of the non-Wikipedia search engine traffic is supported by software that has more context information about the reader than our navigation does, and we know from numerous examples that it navigates them in a way that it tries to short-circuit. Even here, it's not likely that the 22k views identified as coming from search engines to the tank article () used the full name with the Roman numerals and whatnot for their search terms. It's quite different from the behavior of the Wikipedia search engine that you described. Because we can't really control or figure out a lot of these ways readers navigate, that's why a lot of ambiguous terms are disambiguation lists.

  Generally, having a list at the base term will be considered preferable to not having one and depending on the search engine, cf. WP:D2D. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  We would not have no entry at the basename. That's just not how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. If there's no primary topic then Maus (disambiguation) should be moved to Maus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nat Gertler. Really do not agree that a disambig page getting 1/40 of the views is a bad arugment - we see cases where the disambig page gets a solid quarter of the pageviews of the landing page not uncommonly when there's a truly misplaced primary topic. The partial title matches are... well, partial title matches, so only count so much here. SnowFire (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Where do we see such cases? I can't remember one in recent history, it's usually much less clear.

  Besides, the core of the problem is that the external search engines will adjust to our choice of navigation and drive traffic intended for different topics differently, and we can't distinguish it from the organic choices of readers. Let's just look at the classical example of ambiguity by usage, "apple": WikiNav for "Apple" for January '24 shows 3.42k clickstreams to the company over a total traffic of 86.8k, and that 4% or 1/25 seems pretty similar to the 2.5% or 1/40; at the same time WikiNav for "Apple Inc." says there were 587.3k incoming views, of which 381k are identifiable as coming from search engines. Even with a variety of redirects, it's unlikely that that mass of readers contains only those searching for something intricate. If anything, the possibility that in a mass of 587 there's something comparable to 86 who used the base term but did not mean the fruit is perfectly plausible (with 86 that ratio is <15%).

  Therefore, when we look at 42k for the novel, 42k for the tank and 8k for the person, it seems pretty sensible to say that there is a reasonable chance that we're short-circuiting in a way that leaves a substantial part of readers dependent on search engine short-circuiting logic rather than our navigation. Don't you think there's at least a risk of that? --Joy (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  If there was a topic foo, and "Foo" and "Foo (some disambiguator)" had equal hits and there were 10 minor other Foos, then yes, I'd agree that should probably be moved. But while the tank can be abbreviated as "Maus", I don't think the tank as a title is called that alone, rendering it closer to the partial title match case where there'd need to be a more overwhelming advantage in hits. SnowFire (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  For the tank, "Maus" is not being used as and abbreviation. Tanks are commonly referred to by their name eg a Sherman, an Abrams, a Centurion, a Tiger etc. "Maus" is no different. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Except that its name is "Panzer VIII". It is a "Panther" tank, not a "Mouse" tank. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  A full designation for a tank may include: a descriptor (either just "tank" or of a particular type eg "infantry tank"), an alphanumeric model and a model name, similar to models of cars. Hence, we have the M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT). Panzer just means tank in German and Kampfpanzer means battle tank. These are captalised because German capitalises all nouns. Panzer is just a shortening of the fuller descriptor Kampfpanzer (eg Panzerkampfwagen IV or Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger). It is common to refer to a tank just by the model name (eg "He drove a Sherman") in the same way we would say, "He drove a Corolla". Appending tank after the model name is optional. Incidentally, panther is Panther in German and tiger is Tiger in german for the masculine form but mouse is Maus. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Panzer not "Panther". Exactly. You get oddballs like MBT-80 which have a common name other their official designation "FV4601 MBT-80". U.S. combat vehicles have an official designation that differs from the name the Army normally uses. The 105 mm gun M1 Abrams is officially the "M1 Tank, Full-Tracked, 105 mm Gun, M1" (Supply catalogue number 2350-01-061-2445). There is agreement that pages like F16 should redirect to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon despite there being other things named F16 (no hyphen). Schierbecker (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's a bit of an idealized case, because in real life topics are often naturally disambiguated, such as the tank naming schemes and indeed the human naming schemes. The trick is to identify how common is it for a topic to be referred to and searched for under the specific name, not as part of a partial match. Also, I believe the overall balance of criteria for primary topics needs to be in favor of there being a clear primary topic - if we have ambiguity with regard to which topics most significantly qualify as "Maus", and ambiguity with regard to whether any of them has the most long-term significance, then it seems most prudent to try resolving the ambiguity up front, as opposed to short-circuiting. Worst case, once we do that, we'll continue tracking the reader interest through statistics and can reconsider any bad decisions based on better data as soon as a new pattern forms after a few months. --Joy (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have broad support for that approach but how do we take book-banning events into account? (xref Streisand effect) The last time it happened, I think this [the graphic novel] article made the top ten for that week. I can't see the tank ever achieving that level of interest. I'll be surprised if another book-banning doesn't happen again, though perhaps not to this one. But when (say) some school bans Aquaman, the news articles will refer back to the Maus banning incident and readers will want to see what that was about. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, an event described may or may not have an enduring effect but it is an hypothetical. The proposed move does not prevent either the book the tank or any other Maus being found with relative ease. It just doesn't place the book in front of all the other Mauses. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  No crystal ball is required to look backwards. It doesn't take deep OR to determine that the total hits ever on the novel are substantially more than those on the tank, if only because of the surge two years ago. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Substantially? You are mistaken. The tank received 4,051,682 page views since 2015, the earliest we have record of. Maus has received 3,817,916.
  Schierbecker (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, these traffic spikes can happen, I noted above another event in recorded history (January '21) where John Maus' article received 15 times as many views as it does normally now. The January '22 spike at Maus was also 10 times. If we format the list with MOS:DABCOMMON, putting the most common meanings on top, even during a traffic spike the average reader should be able to quickly recognize the topic they're looking for. --Joy (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per JMF. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PT2. A Google Scholar search for maus -author:maus returns results exclusively for the book (and results in Google Books are first about the book and then various uses of the surname). The tank doesn't register in this test of long-term significance. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  When I do that search on Scholar, the first three results are actually Portuguese, then four about the novel, then one about the plural of the word Mau. It's interesting that you exclude authors named Maus from the Scholar search - when I tried without that, I got nothing about any of these topics, only people named Maus. This seems to reinforce the idea of the term being ambiguous, rather than point to a single clear primary topic by long-term significance. --Joy (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting, (in the US) I don't get anything non-comic book until page four (plural of Mau Maus, then surname). I use -author because Scholar strongly tends to favor author matches in searches generally. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  This suggests Google tunes the Scholar algorithm differenty depending on location. We could say that the novel is the primary topic in America, therefore it might as well be in the whole world. But the people named Maus are also mostly American - the results I got on the first page were Stefan from CO; Gabriela from NY; Marcela from MA; Katharine from VA; Erika from IL; and then Joachim and Ingeborg from Germany. If this is indicative of what our average American reader with a scientific background might be acquainted with, they will by and large recognize the term as ambiguous. With regard to books, we can have a look at Google Books Ngrams which seem to show mentions of the term throughout recorded history, with a recent growth possibly related to the novel. --Joy (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  and just using plain old google search, the first two pages consist of links to pages about the novel, apart from just one reference to the tank (because it is our Panzer article – positioned third; the first response is our novel article) and one B movie on IMDB. Of course Google gives different responses depending on who asks, so your mileage may vary. Scholar may do likewise? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, who knows. FWIW, for me, trying to turn off personal web search with https://www.google.com/search?q=maus&pws=0 I get 4 pictures from the novel and 2 pictures of the tank on top; on the right hand side is information about the novel; and below that it's novel, novel, three videos about the novel, one normal item about the tank, six more normal links about the novel, then the box of 8 related searches containing 6 items about tanks and 2 about novels, then another normal item about the novel, then an item about the film The Maus, then some more about the novel, and so forth, it's an infinite scroll these days. Some of the items seem to be obviously influenced by my location, like links to local bookstores. All in all, I don't like trying to analyze the general search output too much because it appears to be trying to get me to buy something, which doesn't seem like something compatible with pondering encyclopedia navigation. --Joy (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support, there is no justification for this graphic novel monopolizing the term of "Maus" simply because that is what it is named, especially while there are other notable subjects with the same name. Readers will be able to find this highly notable graphic novel with ease, both with its disambiguated name "Maus (graphic novel)" as well as from the disambiguation page newly created. This is a no brainer per nom and per MOS:DAB.Iljhgtn (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The graphic novel is clearly the primary topic, not requiring disambiguation. The tank nickname is a specialty topic. As for basing renames on pageviews, another weapon, North American P-51 Mustang, gets 101,000 views/month, while the actual horse Mustang gets 22,000. I don't think anybody would rename on that basis. And while it's not germane from a purely Wikipedia style point of view, am I the only one who finds it disturbing to have a weapon used to further a genocidal war set over the book that describes the horrors of that regime? Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Acroterion is it more disturbing than to have an innocent surname, one worn by of a number of notable people, overshadowed by an unrelated work of fiction as well as weapons of war? These comparisons are not really useful. I think we should rather focus on making a positive argument why exactly there's a benefit in short-circuiting readers to the article about the novel, something that we're not really seeing yet. --Joy (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. There is no pejorative association with the book at the primary topic. This is an FA and a vital article. It's about an extremely influential book that should take priority over the other topics. The primary topic is clear-cut. I don't see a "positive argument," I see flattening everything like that as something that looks from any distance like tone deafness. If you have concerns about surnames being associated with German mice, we often set surnames apart, which would be a good idea. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, that is indeed what I thought when I said a positive argument should be made. It would be nice to hear more about how extremely influential the book is, beyond the assertions.

  The argument that the word is ambiguous might not be especially positive, but it is at least neutral. Indeed I'd say that that the claim that acknowledging the ambiguity would be 'tone deaf' strikes me as excessive. An encyclopedia is a compendium of human knowledge - in this case some of it is about novels, some about tanks, some about biographies, some about whatever else is in the long tail. Navigation that takes into account the whole spread of reader interests should not be taken as a value judgement. Otherwise, WP:AT would look quite a bit different than it does. --Joy (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, a quick skim of the list of comparable vital articles also includes Pogo (comic strip), The Sandman (comic book), Bleach (manga), which have disambiguated titles, so there doesn't seem to be a strict relationship between primary topic and vital article status. --Joy (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since the discussion started with an equivalency between a failed prototype weapon and the novel, it was worth pointing out that things like tanks and airplanes are self-disambiguating by reference to designations, rather than nicknames. I don't think the example of bleach is a good parallel - the common household product is unambiguously a primary topic compared to a manga, however popular it is. The trouble people are having is that it's a non-English word, which makes things less clear in comparison to, say, "mouse." My main point is a more meta argument, that we need to look outside the encyclopedia processes for perspective, which to me appears to be missing. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and on that note, a 'native' English thing about "Maus" is native English-speaking people with that surname, and our processes don't formally account for that well, either. I keep having to explain over and over that there is an identifiable contingent of readers that like to navigate to and read biographies based on non-exact name lookups. We also seem to often have trouble with organizing navigation with regard to singular/plurals as well as non-nouns. --Joy (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Joy:, each of those names is used a number of topics, making disambiguation essential; there is only one topic uniquely called Maus. No ambiguity arises. The examples you cite are irrelevant. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  The trouble people are having is that it's a non-English word... No, I don't think people are having trouble with that at all. ...things like tanks and airplanes are self-disambiguating by reference to designations, rather than nicknames. We never give articles that may need parenthetical disambiguation priority over articles that have natural disambiguation. Both of these things are commonly referred to as Maus, whether one has natural disambiguation or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  I beg to differ. I'm sure someone could make an argument along the lines of - Pogo the work of art is mainly just called Pogo, and the stick is mainly called a pogo stick and the dance is mainly called the pogo dance. --Joy (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  You see, I would have said the graphic novel is also a speciality topic. Different people have different interests and different perceptions of what is primary. There's nothing clear about it. Your mustang example is obvious. This is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't want to dwell on the mustang comparison before since the article about the mustang horses demonstrates long-term significance of the topic by describing several centuries of source coverage, which coincides with the timeline of the exploration of the Americas by Europeans - so it's a bit of an unfair comparison to the popular Maus topics which happen to be inherently restricted to the last century.

  At the same time, that article has a big hatnote which immediately struck me as unwieldy. The all-time pageview stats and recent clickstreams both indicate that there is quite a bit of a potential to examine the perennial significance vs. usage situation there, too. And of course as soon as I went to check, I found a fair bit of discussion about this (1, 2).

  So I'd just say that this is a good example of how some things are obvious to one set of editors, not obvious to another, and we probably have no real idea how obvious it is to the readers. --Joy (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per JMF. The novel won a Pulitzer Prize while the tank was a couple of prototypes that were never used in combat. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't just a comparison of two topics named Maus, it's about all of them, because the same term is useful to navigate readers to biographies of an art critic, a cancer researcher, a submarine commander, a popular TV series art director, etc. --Joy (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Joy, that was your 21st comment in this rather short thread. I think you’re quite deep in WP:BLUDGEON territory here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat surely you have to recognize a bit of irony in how I get to be lectured about doing the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS process wrong, after having engaged in no discussion and posting a bland WP:!VOTE. Just a little bit? :) --Joy (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea what went on before, but you've now made 22 comments and there have only been 19 !votes. I think the closer of this will be aware of your opinion by the time they get through it all. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per JMF and others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per JMF's rationale. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale of JMF, NatGertler and others. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per JMF and various others. Generalissima (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (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.