Talk:Roy Lichtenstein

Internal Link Not Working

The link to "Ohh...Alright..." in the table "Roy Lichtenstein sales records" is broken. The actual page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohhh...Alright...

Trophonius326 (talk)

 Done thanks! DBaK (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Spelling mistake 90.253.130.130 (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not identified the specific change required - what is the mistake? and where is it on the page? - Arjayay (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If it was "Septepmber" - I have now corrected it - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2020 (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:

• Seascape, by Roy Lichtenstein, 1965, Philadelphia Museum of Art.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of copying/theft

Quite a bit of media is publishing criticism of Lichtenstein and his “appropriation” of comic images for his art. I believe it’s valid enough to be mentioned in the article, but not sure if a separate “Controversies” section would be too much? https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/apr/09/new-allegations-of-plagiarism-against-roy-lichtenstein —Chimino (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections are discouraged by wikipedia style guides. My feeling is that we should wait to see if anything comes of these legal issues before adding anything to avoid to much rumour and back-and-forth in the text. Ashmoo (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

the artnet article referenced in BTfromLA's comment is behind a paywall now, but this post from Plagiarism Today can be seen.

In the example shown the article, Lichtenstein's copying is obvious. Certainly if any art school student turned in such a thing it would be deemed plagiarism.

The Wikipedia article would do well to show a side-by-side comparison so that readers can see the nature of what is being discussed rather than have to imagine it.

Deconstructing Lichtenstein has many side by side examples. Robcat2075 (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the issues are moral/ethical rather than legal. There is a documentary film on this and articles in the Washington Post and numerous art and comic sites in addition to the Guardian linked above. Here's one example, with a podcast on the topic: https://news.artnet.com/multimedia/the-art-angle-podcast-how-roy-lichtenstein-became-a-super-villain-to-comic-book-artists-2284371

In my view, the arguments are misguided and often peppered with misinformation. but there is enough of this coverage that it will attract readers here in search of more info. This probably should be addressed in the article somehow. BTfromLA (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, we should go further than simply saying “comic-book inspired” in the lead section. FOARP (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2026 (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:

• Industry and the Arts (II) (C.86), 1969.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)