Talk:Jules Feiffer

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

Material in need of sourcing
I moved the following unsourced information here until it can be sourced per WP:V:

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

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

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

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

Four cartoons, too many?
The article has four cartoons or excerpts of Feiffer's copyrighted work. I suspect that's more than needed to illustrate his style and the article isn't commenting on them individually, so we're probably violating fair use. Comments? --173.76.64.157 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I removed two. Pepso2 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

RFC for picture change
I don't see this discussion resolving so I thought it best to start an RFC for which picture is preferred where in the article. Tduk (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken the initiative of adding a third option to the discussion which I think is perfectly viable, though it should be noted that it is in the article already, and well suited to its position. Still, given the connection to the main notability of the subject, and the fact that it is a high quality photo in it's own right, I'd say it's easily as reasonable as the alternatives.  Hope I'm not giving the impression of stepping on anyone's toes.  S n o w  let's rap 04:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Historical I think that the historical black-and-white photo lends itself toward more of an encyclopedic look. Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Recent I think that a historical photo in which much of his head is obscured with headphones belongs in the body of the entry, not at the head. I disagree that a photo with headphones and a cigarette looks more "encyclopedic." I think people want to see what Jules actually looks like, and the recent photo does that.  Klg19 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Historical - The recent image is poor. Feiffer looks caught off guard, his eyes are squinting, and he's got an awkward smile. The historical image is far more encyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Historical" or a third option "Cartoonist". I agree the status-quo image is far, far higher quality and more encyclopedic than the candid alternative.  I would argue though, that given it's visual content (relative to the notability of the subject) and it's own high quality (arguably superior to the status-quo image), that this is actually by far the best option.  S n o w  let's rap 04:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cartoonist! Great shot of the subject working on the first of his many publications. The connection w. his notability makes it an easy choice for me. The "historical" photo would be great if he was a radio dj, otherwise the headphones are just a distraction. Glendoremus (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cartoonist cropped. Since the uncropped image was the original one, which didn't fit the lead image space too well, I cropped it and boosted the tone a bit. I'll add this to the lead while the RFC continues. --Light show (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't normally add imagines mid-RFC as it just confuses things, but I've added two _recent_ photos of Feiffer, taken at his talk last year at Columbia University. They haven't been adjust for contrast,etc. Tduk (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Historical - The recent photo (and the 2 at the end) just looks weird ...., and the historical one looks the most recent after those, IMHO the historical is better than the cartoon/drawing. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cartoonist cropped. most visually appealing BobLaRouche (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)