Talk:Mel Odom (artist)

Keep
There are already a number of existing articles for artists primarily/initially known for their SF/F book covers, such as Thomas Canty and Kinuko Craft. For that matter, "Category:Fantasy artists" includes at least one artist (Terese Nielsen) mainly known for illustrating Magic: The Gathering cards.

The New York Times devoted a 1998 article to Odom and his Gene doll (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07EFDA113FF931A15751C0A96E958260), listing some highlights of his illustration career:

"In the late 1970's and early 80's, Mr. Odom was one of the hottest commercial artists in New York, a man whose contemporaries included such illustrators as Richard Amsel, Antonio Lopez and George Stavrinos, all now legendary. His erotically charged (but rarely sexually explicit) drawings for Playboy, Viva and especially Blueboy earned him an avid following.

[...]"His first literary commission led to extensive illustration work, including a line of greeting cards and posters from Paper Moon Graphics, inclusion of his work in shows at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, and awards from the Society of Illustrators.

[...]"The culmination of Mr. Odom's illustration career came with a 1989 cover of Time magazine, a portrait of the Ayatollah Khomeini. 'It's kind of the Mount Rushmore of illustration,' Mr. Odom said."

The NYT further notes, "Robert Mapplethorpe shot [Odom's] portrait for First Eyes, a 1982 Japanese catalogue of Mr. Odom's work, and traded it to him for a painting", for which the corresponding bibliographic info seems to be Genko-sha Publishing (1982) ASIN: B000JE29YC. Penguin Books published another compilation of Odom's work in 1984/1985 ("Dreamer", ISBN-10: 0140073787, ISBN-13: 978-0140073782).

The site already linked from the main entry elucidates some of his awards: "His work has an inherent fantasy feel to it and art directors in the field were quick to place his covers on their books. The sf magazine Omni was also a client. He did sleeves for CBS records. Playboy named him Illustrator of the Year in 1980 and he won the Society of Illustrators' Gold Medal in the Editorial class in 1982, and the Silver Medal in the Book class in 1987. His pencil, peerless dyes, and gouache technique is very distinctive and he seems to be totally in command of every nuance."

Also, I suspect that the author Mel Odom would appreciate being clearly differentiated from this artist, lest unwary fans fall into the trap of thinking that a single individual of that name began his career with erotic illustrations before switching over to Left Behind tie-in novels.

Mdvanii and BillyBoy*
I moved the following paragraph from a recent edit by User:Fondation Tanagra into here:

"Mel Odom, being long-time friend to BillyBoy*, artist, fashion designer and historian ( he was the first designer to have his name on Mattel's Barbie doll box and wrote the first book, a best-seller, on Barbie doll), submitted a design for a Mdvanii make-up in 1990, which was ultimately not used by BillyBoy*. The confusion, due to the anticipated use of the design, was further created when a small quantity of the Mdvanii doll's boxes claimed Odom designed the make-up. This story is clearly explained in detail, along with the entire history of the Mdvanii doll by BillyBoy* on the Fondation Tanagra's website (www.fondationtanagra.com). The Fondation Tanagra is a non-profit cultural and art organization based in Switzerland founded by BillyBoy* and his partner of 25-years, Jean-Pierre Lestrade a.k.a Lala, in 1997."

Thanks for the new info about Odom's (non)involvement with Mdvanii, which I've briefly spliced into the main article-- however, IMHO much of the text seems more appropriate for a separate article about Mdvanii. Wombat1138 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Mdvanii part as follows:

"In 1990, Odom proposed to design.."

As it seems to be more appropriate and neutral phrasing at this point. There are no actual evidence that he designed the released version Muotinukke (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A request: please stop reverting my edit from December 24th 2010. Thank you kindly. The evidence that Mel Odom designed the released version of the Mdvanii makeup is on the 2nd page of this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/14/garden/a-doll-for-the-90-s-beautiful-but-no-bimbo.html Mary Cross (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The NYT article is NOT an evidence or proof that Mel Odom designed the released version Mdvanii make-up. Here you can see that another site says very differently about the matter: http://www.fondationtanagra.com/index.cfm?article=20&cfid=324462&cftoken=81843806


 * I have collected Mdvaniis now for many years and I also own many early Mdvaniis. Me, myself or my other collector friends have never heard that Mel Odom would have designed anything for Mdvanii. Only thing I know is that he proposed to BillyBoy* to design the make-up. Nothing else. There are no evidence or proof of a Mdvanii existing with Odom designed make-up. Articles written just in the middle of the release/publish frenzy could often make mistakes like the NY times article (it also says Mdvanii is made of vinyl which is not the case).


 * So, as there are at least two contradicting sources at this point it seems to be more appropriate and neutral phrasing to say he "proposed" to design. It doesnt rule out anything. Do you understand my point?


 * Also, please STOP undoing my edits on the Gene Marshall page. Its seems you are doing all this on bad will. Thank you!
 * Muotinukke (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As you know, this matter has been brought up on the Mdvanii Talk Page, and as you also know, Leivick said, "Something like Foundation Tanagra can be used to for some things per WP:CITESELF. However if there is a dispute the better source should be used in this case obviously the NYT." Since there is a dispute, kindly defer to my edit which adheres to the New York Times source.  Thank you.  See this page, under topic "Original research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mdvanii

Mary Cross (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I know that discussion and I have responded to it. However, I feel that there is a clear confusion what is the truth. SO, I repeat: as there are at least two contradicting sources at this point it seems to be more appropriate and neutral phrasing to say he "proposed" to design. It doesnt rule out anything.

Muotinukke (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's article on verifiabilty, which says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Also, at the top of this page, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page."Mary Cross (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont see any biographies here that are unsourced or poorly sourced. Instead the NYT article you are referreing to is not accurate. It says Mdvanii is made of vinyl. Mdvanii is not made of vinyl but resin. It kinda takes all the credibility off from the NYT article which was published just as the Mdvaniis were being launched. SO FINAL TIME: STOP REMOVING MY EDITS. Muotinukke (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have requested a Third Opinion in this dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion  Mary Cross (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! If you look at the articles on the Fondation Tanagra website http://www.fondationtanagra.com/index.cfm?nsy=301&cfid=324549&cftoken=84735307 they seem to be more accurate and more/very precise on subjects like Mdvaniis dolls body (resin), hair, outfits and the make-up. There are also numerous other sources that confirm most of these details. The old NYT article, however seem to be quite sloppy as they are claiming that Mdvanii dolls are made of vinyl which is not the case. Muotinukke (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you as well. I would welcome any reliable sources that refute The New York Times' article, of course.  However it is my opinion that the article from Fondation Tanagra, http://www.fondationtanagra.com/index.cfm?article=20&cfid=324462&cftoken=81843806, is not as reliable a source as The New York Times, in that the Fondation Tanagra appears to be a self-published website by BillyBoy* & Lala, and the article in question bears no authorship and seems to have no editoral oversight, or any reliable references cited, or any references at all.  The tone of the Fondation Tanagra article casts Mr. Odom and his contributions in a negative light but does not cite references, though it isn't required to, since it is a self-published website.  However, Wikipedia works differently.  No one has signed the article you provided, it merely says, "Fondation Tanagra," and Fondation Tanagra's main page says it's the product of BillyBoy* & Lala, the Mdvanii doll's creators.  That is why I feel that a source which is regarded as third-party and reliable and independant of the subject matter be deferred to, in this case The New York Times.  My belief is, which version you may feel is "the truth" is not relevant to the way Wikipedia works, which bases inclusion in articles based on verifiability.  The New York Times is, I feel, the more verifiable source here.  In any case, I suppose it's out of our hands, and in the hands of a Third Opinion, now.  Perhaps a compromise may be reached, but I don't see you backing down any time soon in your assertion, and I feel my assertion is correct as well with regards to Wikipedia's policies.Mary Cross (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think my original change/edit to this article was very neutral point of view as there are at least two contradicting sources at this point it seems to be more appropriate and neutral phrasing to say he only "proposed" to design. It's a very minor change and doesnt rule out anything. As for the Fondation Tanagra its a nonprofit cultural fondation which is currently the best source for information about the works of BillyBoy. And I feel it's a best way to describe his contribution as NYT article has also other errors (Mdvanii is not made from vinyl) and thusly cannot be trusted. AND the NYT article says he (painter) ONLY painted Mdvanii which also differes from your edit which says "designed". Quote: "The New York painter Mel Odom painted the original Mdvanii face, after many tests and adjustments." Also, the article mentions: quote: "painted by hand in Paris". Is there any proof that Odom was in Paris at that time? Muotinukke (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, at the top of this page it says, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page." Your repeatedly saying Mr. Odom "proposed" to design is in my opinion a way of trying to reduce his invovlement in this instance, and it comes from what I consider a poor source, and it conflicts with what The New York Times source reports, as well as what the white stickers on the Mdvanii boxes in question say, which is, quote, "Make-up designed by Mel Odom," end-quote.  The issue at hand as I see things is whether or not Fondation Tanagra is considered a verifiable third-party source, as verifiable and third-party as The New York Times, and until a Third Opinion can be obliged to enter into this discussion, there's not much more point in circling the issue, at least that's my opinion on it, with all due respect.Mary Cross (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say this but there is no mention in the NYT article about Mel Odom "designing" anything for Mdvanii. Only that "he is a painter that painted Mdvanii face". However, there is a mention that he "proposed to design the make-up but was rejected by the artists" on the Fondation Tanagra website. I hope you will see my point how unreliable and sloppy the NYT article is. Or are you also claiming that Mdvanii is made from vinyl because the same NYT article from 1990 (when Mdvanii was just recently released) claims so? Its a typical publishing frenzy article without the real and accurate facts. I think that if you wish to claim that Mel Odom actually designed (and was accepted to be released) the make-up for the published Mdvanii you need some other sources as the NYT article only mentions him being a painter painting the Mdvanii face and Fondation Tanagra mentions that he was complitely rejected from the job. It's too big difference so at this point I would only use the most neutral phrasing that is "he proposed to design". I think it would be the best for the reliability point of view of wikipedia. Also, I find it strange that you are also undoing all my edits (regarding Mdvanii) in the Mel Odom designed doll Gene Marshall page and you have been doing unwanted edits on the actual (and new) Mdvanii page.Muotinukke (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

NY Times article (published in March 14, 1990) mentions that "The New York painter Mel Odom painted the original Mdvanii face, after many tests and adjustments." However, the first original Mdvanii catalog back from 1989, Mdvanii de BILLYBOY* PARIS Limited Edition by BILLYBOY TOYS TM (Maquette GERARD Florence), doesnt mention Mel Odom in any way in the entire catalog. Instead, it describes Mdvanii this way (page 2):

"Mdvanii is a 25 centimeters high fashion doll created in Paris, France, whose exquisite high-fashion wardrobe and accessories are designed and created on Rue de la Paix, the most famous fashion street in the world! The Mdvanii doll is made in a special heavy resin in a pale powdered tone evocative of 1950s glamorous make-up. Her lovely features, delicate colouring and high fashion make up are individually hand-painted by trained artists, giving each doll a unique nuance and an alluring one-of-a-kind expression. She is hand made and assembled in Paris, France. Mdvanii doll is labeled on the back of her head with a gold-plated metal tag with her name on it, identifying her as an original BillyBoy* Toys creation. She moves at the shoulders, thighs and neck."

So, there is no mention about Mel Odom what so ever and it confirms that Mdvanii is made of resin and not from vinyl (NYT article claims shes made from vinyl ). AND when Mdvanii was released already back in 1989 (Mdvanii came out in 14th Febuary 1989 at liberty in London) and Odom proposed to desing the make-up in 1990 only after Mdvaniis original release 1989, how couldve he "painted" or "designed" the "original face" ?

Muotinukke (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but there are also plenty of books and booklets and catalogs in existence that also don't mention Mel Odom in any way. An omission of Mel Odom's name neither confirms nor denies anything, as I see it.  However, The New York Times does mention Mel Odom, unequivocally.  I understand your making bold certain phrases, but no one is disputing whether or not trained artists hand-painted Mdvanii; it's obvious she's been hand-painted.  No one is disputing she was originally made in Paris, France.  No one is disputing that she is an original BillyBoy* Toys creation, even though other artists, artisans and craftspersons may have collaborated on her, like Alexandre de Paris... or in this case, Mel Odom.Mary Cross (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The catalog happens to mention other collabrators from the time like Alexandre de Paris, Rene Gruau and Clyde Smith. I find it hard to believe it would have left out Mel Odom. Anyway, I think you missed the main points which were A) NYT article from 1990 has errors (Mdvanii is not made of vinyl and B) Mdvanii was released already back in 1989 (Mdvanii came out in 14th Febuary 1989 at liberty in London) and Odom proposed to desing the make-up in 1990 only after Mdvaniis original release 1989, so how couldve he "painted" or "designed" the "original face" ? I think that the NYT article is not a valid source in this matter. Muotinukke (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for giving the impression that I missed the main points you made. The reason I didn't respond to your points is because though you might believe them, I felt there were holes in the logic, and I felt it would be silly to take up space here responding to them when I didn't see the reason to, mainly because my response will be information I've already shared more than once.  But I will respond since you ask again, and I'm sorry for not doing so earlier but I had my reasons as I've just explained.  In regards to The New York Times article, if this were a debate over resin vs vinyl, you would have a point.  I have never argued that, and am sorry if I gave that impression, though I don't see how I might have given it.  The article which says, "vinyl" also says, "90's" which is incorrect (if written, it would read, "ninety's", as we all know).  However, the article also has much information that is correct.  And whether or not the article is without what you or I might consider "flaws" isn't the issue.  I've explained this, I feel, enough times.  At the risk of repeating myself yet again, the issue is one of verifiabilty, reliability and third-party objectivity.  We will see whether your source will appear to posses verifiabilty, relability or third-party objectivity to a Third Opinion's eye, but I do think The New York Times does possess these qualities, therefore that source is preferable as far as I understand Wikipedia's standards and policies when it comes to Mr Odom's involvement in the creation of the Mdvanii doll.  You feel The New York Times should be discounted over mistaking resin for vinyl, and I understand that postion.  But the article's statement concerning Mr. Odom's involvement is unequivocal, and is backed up by BillyBoy*'s stickers on the early Mdvanii boxes, as you know, no matter what later denials crept up during the Internet Age.  Secondly, Ms. Bogart's article was published on March 14th I believe of 1990 as we know, but I don't presume that she's writing about things that happened in March of 1990 but rather events that took place prior to that date... if she were writing about events that took place months prior, say in 1989, or even 1987, such a suggestion wouldn't surprise me.  Your source claims Mr. Odom came aboard with an offer of assistance in 1990, but that's an unverifiable claim that anyone with access to their own website could make, and indeed whoever wrote that claim hasn't provided a reference or a source for his knowledge and has written it on a self-published website with an obvious lack of editorial oversight, and with what I consider to be a biased and poorly sourced slant against Mr. Odom.  A person could create a website or modify an existing website to say a lot of things against living persons, but would such a website be considered worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article's references about a living person is the point I have stressed and stressed here from the beginning, despite any in my opinion tangential arguments over resin versus vinyl, "painted" versus "designed," etc.Mary Cross (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The stickers on early Mdvanii boxes are irrelevant as your source doesnt mention them and you have not provided any source for such boxes. It doesnt matter what you presume Ms. Bogart writes about. She doesnt mention any dates. You yourself originally mentioned on this Mel Odom (artists) page, that Odom designed the make-up in 1990 "In 1990, Odom designed the cosmetic facepaint..". Are you now claiming that Mel Odom designed it in 1989? If so, you need a source. I think it is interesting you claim its "tangential" if the doll is made of resin or vinyl and painted or designed. Yet, you are very much againts of a neutral phrasing that I suggested originally which is that he "proposed to design". Its all very telling. Muotinukke (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I never claimed The New York Times article referred or didn't refer to the boxes. The Fondation Tanagra website source refers to the boxes, and it acknowleges that the stickers say the make-up for Mdvanii was designed by Mel Odom.  There was an earlier mention on this Wikipedia article of Mel Odom's involvement when I made my edit for the first time, and it included the date, I didn't.  I don't claim to know the date when Mel Odom designed the Mdvanii make-up.  I don't feel the doll's composition is tangential, or claim that the choice of words here is tangential... what I am trying to make clear to you in as respectful a tone as possible is that any arguments beside the point are tangential, and the point, once again, is whether BillyBoy*'s website or The New York Times is the more reliable, verifiable and third-party source in regards to Mr. Odom's involvement in the Mdvanii doll's creation.  I am not against neutrality.  On the contrary I am for it.  The New York Times article, for instance, is what I would consider a neutral party in this discussion.Mary Cross (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So, now you are referring the Fondation Tanagra which you dont think is a good source? Strange. Are you really being neutral here? Also, you reverted my edits back and still left the 1990 year on. Also, I think it is very relevant to this discussion to find out how reliable the sources are. That is why the claims about material, time etc. are talked about. You say that the NYT article has "much information that is correct". I have pointed out some obvious errors on it. How can you prove what is correct or not anymore? The fact is that it has errors. I dont think we should trust that article just based on the fact that its written for the NY times. Based on the other errors on the article and other sources mentioned here, I think its pretty clear that the NYT article has also made an error regarding Mel Odoms involment with Mdvanii. Muotinukke (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am Alpha Quadrant. I noticed your request at WP:3O and I would be happy to offer a third opinion and help mediate. Can both of you please indicate whether or not you will accept my offer? Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    04:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Alpha Quadrant. Thank you very much for your proposal! I would be pleased to have your opinion in this matter. Muotinukke (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I accept your offer, too. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant.Mary Cross (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. I see that two sources have conflicting information. The New York Times Article conflicts with a first party source. According to WP:IRS there is a guideline for such cases Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See No original research.

So the official policy is for primary sources (i.e. official websites and closely related organizations) be backed up by third party (also known as secondary) sources. Because a primary source and a secondary source conflict often both aspects are stated and compared. Because the sources conflict we cannot honestly be sure which one is correct. We would need sources from other organizations to verify the information one way or another. If no additional sources can be found, then something along these lines would be written: He is believed to designed the original Mdvanii dolls. According to the New York Times Mel Odom painted the first Mdvanii doll face. However Fondation Tanagra, a website on Mdvanii history, does not mention Mel Odom. I believe that would be the easiest way to resolve the issue. Thoughts? Alpha Quadrant   talk    17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion! I think youre on the right path here. Until other sources are found, may I suggest the following:


 * He is believed to have been involved in designing the cosmetic facepaint for Mdvanii, a 25cm limited-edition collector's fashion doll. According to the New York Times Mel Odom painted the original Mdvanii face . However, the first original Mdvanii catalog from 1989, does not mention Mel Odom . Furthermore, Fondation Tanagra, a website on Mdvanii history, mentions that one of her cosmetic face-paints of 1990 was supposed to be designed by Mel Odom but it was rejected at the last minute by BillyBoy* and never used.


 * It sums up everything that is researched so far without any opinions what is true or false. Any toughts about my suggestion Mary Cross and Alpha Quadrant? Muotinukke (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that sums up rather nicely. Short, to the point, and simply presenting the conflicting information. Alpha Quadrant    talk    20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This source ,LHebdo in Switzerland which did a cover story about BB* & Lala andMdvanii, for the two museum shows, clearly explains that lala did all the makeups....the article is by Isabelle falconnier, a very famous journalist here. LHebdo is like the Times for Switzerland.

ALSO, the situation is discussed between two museum curators in the book which the museums came out with ...this is the citation:

These two sources; a major Swiss news magazine and a museum catalogue clears up this error which occurred in 1990 clearly. There were only 100 labels accidently used in 1990 and the artists them selves clearlly explain the misunderstanding. The NYTs made a mistake PLUS they said Mdvanii was made of vinyl, another big mistake. Odom had absolutely nothing to do with Mdvaniis makeup or anything whatsoever...BB* was living in PAris, Odom in NY when the doll came out in 1989 and they had not seen each other for years, The proposed make up idea was an idea over the telephone,...BB3 wanted to do it, and printed the labels but when he received a sample makeup was immediately disappointed and dropped the whole thing...this has been cited in hundreds of articles since that time to clarify, inclduing Miller's magazine and Doll magazine etc.

I don't know if you can read French but the two sources clearly explain (curators and journalist) what happened Alec jiri (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ALSO, THE FONDATION TANAGRA IS NOT BB*'S PERSONAL WEBSITE...it is a altruistic fondation, which has many contributors writing the articles....BB* co-founded the organization which is a non-profit organization to help artists aand is not geared to talk about his work only...it is only included as it is part of the subject matter which are dolls, art and society....as it says "art+mode+culture".The articles on Mdvanii are not in this case written by the authors of Mdvanii...it was done by a committee. A swiss fondation is not a profit organization at all and the articles about Mdvanii often are co-authored by various committees. The NYTs made a mistake as it was a hurried article to be out when FAO Schwarz was to receive their shipment of dolls. They made a mistake. Even the NYTs makes mistakes. AND there is almost NO references to Odom anywhere except those 100 labels...it was not printed in any official material,never mentioned elsewhere...this is what Norman Mailer calls a FACTOID...a mistake in the press which is repeated so often nobody can know the reaity anymore unless they go back to the first source, in this case, would be the artists themselves. AND the fact nothing is ever mentioned about Odom until that one article and those 100 labels which were released. Alec jiri (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ALSO "He is believed to designed the original Mdvanii dolls. According to the New York Times Mel Odom painted the first Mdvanii doll face. However Fondation Tanagra, a website on Mdvanii history, does not mention Mel Odom." - ODOM DID NOT DESIGN MDVANII! ARE YOU CRAZY??? IT DOES NOT SAY HE DESIGNED MDVANII, NOT EVEN IN THE NYTs.....!!! Alec jiri (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A last detail....those who contributed to Mdvanii are repeatedly mentioned, over and over and over....like Alexandre and Gruau and all those who have participated. The ONLY mention of Odom is that article in the NY Times and those 100 labels, for which I ay add...thousands and thousands of the same label exist WITHOUT HIS NAME,...THE SAME LABEL BUT WITHOUT THE MENTION OF ODOM.....the only repeat of that article is people who are not familiar wit Mdvanii history and look at one of those 100 boxes.....in ALL PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL ALL THOSE INVOLVED ARE REPEATEDLY MENTIONED...Odom was never mentioned, not even in 1990 when the article came out...simultaneous articles and packing, catalogues etc do not mention Odom whilst they do mention Alexandre and gruau and others....even the big show in Canada, the catalogue does not mention Odom and that came out the same time as the NYTs article April and MAy 1990!

I think you are not making any point.It may have been mentioned once in the NYTs but simultaneously in many, many,many press and packaging and boxes there is absolutely no mention of Odom,.....it clearly was an error as explained on the FT website.....BB* anticipated using a make up design of Odom's in 1990, saw it, did notuse it, end of story! NYTs or not! Alec jiri (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LAst note, There are thousands of articles about Mdvanii from 1989 and 1990 and beyond...Vogue, Harper's bazaar, Sunday Times in London, Glamour, Elle and many many prestiquious paperss all over the world, in America Chicago tribune, LATimes, etc etc etc and NONE of these stories when they speak of the make up mention Odom....so if you feel the NYTs is a source, why would there be absolutely nomention of Odom elsewhere? Simultaneously? It was a blip of an error and said and dropped, since it wasnot even discussed ....as it never happened,....the ake up was never used in any way,..it was a make up made on a paper and not used even on one head. The artists have spoken of it when asked by doll collectors,....a real FACTOID Alec jiri (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alec jiri! So, now (already) we have at least three more sources and <ref name=CDM (no mention of Odom) against Mel Odoms supposed involvment with designing Mdvaniis make-up. We have also heard about other possible sources which may further prove that Odom had nothing to do with Mdvaniis make-up. Any suggestion how we should proceed with this issue here Mary Cross and our 3rd party guest Alpha Quadrant? Muotinukke (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just performed a search. I could not find any sources supporting the New York Times. Based on these new sources I believe NYT is wrong. Perhaps you can explain in the article that the NYT made a mistake. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you see the point because literally, there are thousands of articles of the era which mention the makeups and none of them mention odom...here is another one which was simultaneous to the NYTs:

Grand Tra La La exhibition in Canada, which created hundreds of articles at the time in Canada, it was a huge exhition which received great media coverage and even had a prime time Canadian tv special about it.....this was from the press release - :

<ref name=GTLL90

I currently will source more if necessary,...its a very well known fact this error/factoid and it was only mentioned in the NYTs and quickly forgotten as it was never mentioned again int he popular and specialized press. Alec jiri (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again, and thanks for the involvement, Alpha Quadrant. Hello, Alec jiri.  The new references don't seem to address the issue, here, as far as I can make out, but perhaps I'm missing something relevant, and please forgive me if I am.  The first reference, from Isabelle Falconnier, won't load properly for me, so I can't read it.  If it loads for anyone else, could you please copy and paste the article here?  Specifically, what if anything does it say about Mdvanii's first make-up, or Mel Odom?


 * The second reference, from Chantal Prod'hom, says, roughly translated, "BillyBoy*, extravagant and brilliant artist, inserts to us in company of his/her Lala collaborator in l' particular universe their dolls of mode. Neither exactly mannequins, nor only dolls of mode, they are defined by their authors like a sculpture in the imaginary lifestyle. It is through their singular creation, the “character” Mdvanii (to pronounce Mid-vah-nee), first doll for adults, that this world is discovered; eclecticism and sophistication. Elsa Schiaparelli, Rene Magritte and Andy Warhol receive in the passing a supported homage there. Mdvanii “this is not a doll” is the catalogue of an exhibit which is declined in sculptures, photographs and paintings." Again, that was a rough translation, and apparently there is more to be read for 39.00 CHF.  What point in the dispute over Mel Odom is this reference meant to support (and how)?  Again, what if anything does it say about Mdvanii's first make-up, or Mel Odom?


 * The third reference, from Lewis Goldstein, is from the spring 1991 volume of Contemporary Doll Magazine, and is written as if the author is conducting an interview with the doll, Mdvanii. I am familiar with that article.  At no point in that magazine article does the subject of who invented, designed or painted Mdvanii's first make-up occur.  Mdvanii's fisrt make-up isn't brought up in that article.  Therefore, why is the article being mentioned here in this dispute?


 * Again, please forgive me if I am missing the point of what those new references have to do with the dispute.Mary Cross (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a request for editor assistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Another_opinion_needed_on_Mel_Odom_.28artist.29_Talk_PageMary Cross (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary Cross did you ever read Alec jiri comments? I think he gave us pretty comprehensive explanation about the issue and how the new sources are related to the subject. We also had a 3rd party opinion here involved who agrees that the NYT article has made an error. You asked for "editor asistance". Kudpung mentions about the NYT article that it has "a very fleeting mention, is not at all about Mel Odom, and is not a source that contributes to Odom's notability". You alone are still defending the ONE AND ONLY source that ever in over 20 years mentioned Odom having anything to do with Mdvaniis make-up. What is your real motivation on this detail youre defending so stubbornly? It doesnt make any sense.Muotinukke (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view, when the references don't check out, someone has to bring these matters to someone's attention, otherwise Wikipedia would be filled with all sorts of unverified claims. And so far the references given to disupte Mel Odom's involvement in the creation of the Mdvanii doll's first make-up or paint scheme do not, in my opinion, check out.  One reference given is written as if the doll could talk, and while I might think that's amusing, the subject of the doll's first make-up isn't broached.  Another reference, the Chantal Prud'hom, William E. Ewing one, only states that Lala's involvement began officially in 1994.  Yes, I did read Alec Jiri's comments, and his inclusion of this reference about Lala's absense circa 1989 in the Mdvanii doll's creation refutes anything Alec Jiri might say about Lala doing the first Mdvanii make-up.  And so my question remains, why include this reference in this dispute?  Hopefully you can see what I mean now about references that don't check out.  They contribute very little to the dispute as I see it.Mary Cross (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I see this is going nowhere. Mary Cross doesnt like any edits that involve fashion doll called Mdvanii who has been an obvious inspiration for Mel Odom (artist) and Gene Marshall. He/she is also reverting any edits and doing unwanted edits regarding this issue on pages Mel Odom (artist), Gene Marshall and Mdvanii. After he/she was banned from reverting the edits she started to chat on this page clinging on to the 1990 NYT articles obvious mistake which has nothing to contribute to Mel Odom's notability. Muotinukke (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

THE museum catalogue does not say Lala's involvement started as of 1994, it says explicitly that he was there from the beginning and was PUBLICALLY acknowledged as of 1994! It explains that BB* wanted it known that he was doing things from the beginning.Obviously you did not read the catalogue.

Also, the cover story in LHebdo, explains this clealry and says explicitly "LAla paints the make ups since the beginning...this is the author of the article, who did months of research, who says this...its a huge feature stroy ont he cover! Its in French, did you rad this article? Harper's Bazaar says the same things, as do many articles, ...I suggest you read more... Lala was NOT absent, he was not the public figure BillyBoy* was and he was not talked about on the boxes etc....but that is just the point, the museum shsows, for which there have been quite a few, always explain how it evolved to be called BillyBoy* & lala now.....and how he was there from day one, which he was...clearly Mary Cross, you do not know at all this subject and have not READ any of these articles,...I suggest you do so. Besides, I can continue to supply article after article which say this.....ALL the booklets, catalogues, boxes etc, which do talk of the make-up clearly, DOP NOT MENTION ODOM, ever, even though ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE REPEATEDLY MENTIONED OVER AND OVER, LIKE GRUAU, ALEXANDRE DE PARIS ETC....WHAT STUPID POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE, you cannot re-write history just because the NYTs made a mistake! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THE SAME LABELS ON BOXES WHICH DO NOT SAY ODOM, only 100 were made and used, by error, as BillyBoy* anticipated that Odom would do something, but it did not work out and the boxes were late in being delivered and they were used. However, it was never mentioned...even Odom never mentioned it, except once in a magazine where he said he was "disappointed" that it was NOT USED! Alec jiri (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary Cross. I found the articles just for you:


 * From L'Hebdo (page 106): "Ils la fabriquent a deux, --Billy's occupant des habits, Lala du maquillage, de la coiffure et des accessoires. Ils en ont créé quelque trois mille depuis 1989." free translation by me "They are making it together - Billy clothes, Lala makeup, hairstyles and accessories. They have created some three thousand since 1989." Muotinukke (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the museum catalog (page 68): About Lala: "The invention of Mdvanii in 1989 would result in a multifaceted artistic collabration with BillyBoy* from the year 1989 onwards." Muotinukke (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the museum catalog (page 7): "Mdvanii was designed by the artists, fabricated by them from start to finish.." (written by Chantal Prod'hom, William E. Ewing) Muotinukke (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the museum catalog (page 38): How is the work (on Mdvanii) devided: Lala: "I also paint the dolls, give the faces expressions through make-up and hairdos." Muotinukke (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence are here. No Mel Odom mention anywhere. In the Mel Odom page the reference to the NYT should be removed and it should be added that his proposal to design Mdvaniis cosmetic face-paint was never used. Muotinukke (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alec jiri please remember to remain civil, especially in content disputes. Using ALL CAPS is often considered shouting. Please consider using bold to emphasize a sentence. Mary Cross, it appears the New York Times made an error. Several of the sources presented by Alec jiri and Muotinukke are reliable French sources. If you are able to find sources supporting the NYT then a factual conflict section could be written. I tried to find sources that support the NYT and could not find any. The only sources I could find disagreed with the New York Times. If you have any questions I would be happy to help. Alpha Quadrant    talk    19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no disrespect intended....I always forget that in the USA it's considered shouting... sincerely sorry. Mea Culpa. In "now speak", my bad.

Norman Mailer, respected American author defines a "Factoid" as something which was written erroneously in print by a reliable source then repeated often to the point people "believe" it to be a genuine fact when in real fact, it's a mistake. This Odom point was that....a classic factoid! It appeared in print in a serious paper, the NYTs, and though it was an error, was repeated...the truth however, was constantly corrected in many articles and serious publications, but since most people do not bother to question a source like the NYTs, if you don't do the research, you go away with a mis-information. BillyBoy* and Odom were friends throughout BillyBoy*s teen years,...he asked Odom to do a cover picture of Barbie for his Barbie years....a year after he did Mdvanii he asked Odom to try and do a make up and anticipated it, printing 100 box labels,...but unfortunately, when he received the sketch he rejected it, but since the order was very late, (due to Odom's lateness himself)...the dolls were painted as usual (they being in existance for over a year already) and sent int he pre-prepared boxes...causing the mistake...in subsequent articles of that time, it was never mentioned and though Mdvanii had many exhibitions (Canada, Bloomingdales and other venues in the USA, Europe, Russia, China, Japan) in 1990 and afterwards, never was Odom referred to again and shortly thereafter BillyBoy* asked Lala to to sign all the work with him as he constantly explained in press and museum shows that Lala was there from the beginning and deserved the credit. Re-writing history with a mistake is a factoid. In Japan this has been extensively explained as well since Mdvaniis make up and colours change every season and the new shapes and colours are mentioned...and, as he was never involved inthe first place, Odom is not mentioned. PLUS, I may add, in an article for which i am trying to locate the citation link needed,...Odom himself says he was disappointed that his make up was never used and that is why he decided to do Gene doll. Mary Cross seems to have a hidden agenda for insisiting on this error. I can continually supply sources which prove beyond a matter of doubt that Lala always since day one, designed Mdvaniis makeup....Mdvaniis early makeups were inspired by Billyboy*'s adopted mother and you can see this in on of the link I supplied. I don't think there is any greater proof of who did what than the artist himself speaking of his work. In addition, you can clearly see BillyBoy* and later BillyBoy* and Lala constantly give credit to those who in any way participated int he creation of Mdvanii,...it would seem illogical that he would not mention Odom if he had genuinely done something. The whole point was "art within art" and Odom did get inspiration not only to collect Barbie thanks to BillyBoy* and do the portrait of Barbie for BillyBoy*'s New Theatre of Fashion exhibitions, but later (six years after Mdvanii) to do his own commercial doll, which was not at all hand painted or created as a work of art. I even know of a source where BillyBoy* said he was sorry that he could not use the Odom trial (which was on paper). He said he just could not imagine using it because it was not at all a reflection of what he wanted Mdvanii to look like. BillyBoy* completely invented mdvanii and he always has the final say in any detail concerning her look. He shows no sign of harbouring bad will towards Odom in that regard though it has been repeatedly stated when it was referred to back then, that he simply did not want to use it because he did not like it. Point. Gene was a commercially manufactured doll (which ultimately went bankrupt recently -which I do not see in the Gene Marshall page - Mary Cross doesn't seem very interested in improving the factuality and neutrality of that page). If you require further citations, I can continue to supply them, almost endlessly as how Mdvanii is made and designed is written into nearly all articles and press from 1989 until now...and the packaging and press releases of museums and shows make no reference to Odom whatsoever. I hope this matter is clear now for Mary Cross. Thank you for your help. Alec jiri (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the translation to the reference. I see my insistence on Mel Odom's contribution was wrong.  I meant no disrespect to anyone.Mary Cross (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I hope to see you all around Wikipedia. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mel Odom (artist). 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/20050503172617/http://www.fondationtanagra.com/index.cfm?article=20&cfid=1761993&cftoken=40463175 to http://www.fondationtanagra.com/index.cfm?article=20&cfid=733490&cftoken=6155559

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)