Talk:Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928–1960

Copyright violation?
I may be mistaken, but this looks like a WP:COPYVIO of http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=851 (eighth paragraph) so I have tagged it as such and notified the author, .

If you disagree, please leave a new message on this Discussion page before you remove the from the article ... timing can be critical at this early stage, so please remember to "Flag first, then Tag!"

Happy Editing! — 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * O.K. I have beefed up the article with a plot summary of the fake biography and more info. about the art hoax with relevant sources included. Hope this satisfies! 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's no longer just a copy&paste from another article, so I have removed the  that I tagged it with a few hours ago, and I did my WikiGnome thing to make properly cited references, along with some other cosmetic cleanups ... I think that I've put as much lipstick on this pig as I can, which means that now it's time for me to MOVE ON. &mdash;68.239.79.82 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * AfD this page, use a cleanup template, or rewrite it. Blanking pages solves nothing. 68.202.109.102 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

David Lister
With the speculation that David Lister (the one who argued Tate was fake) didn't exist, I'd like to point out that the main character of the British comedy Red Dwarf is named David Lister. This could be where the name comes from. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  23:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I point out that David Lister was arts correspondent of The Independent at the time? Andrew McKie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.251.154 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, because I quite often met him, read his pieces, and can add this as a citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/david-lister-twentyfive-years-is-a-long-time-in-arts-journalism-2366682.html Newsweek, by that account, don't seem to have been *awfully* on the ball Andrew McKie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.251.154 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an absolute joke to include the Newsweek bit, but I can't be bothered to remove it as somebody who imagines themself to be important will immediately revert to it. Because Wikipedia is a joke.77.103.172.40 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"few were fooled"
The sentence "In reality, it appears that few were fooled and most of the big names in the arts world (including artists, collectors, art historian, art dealers, New York based writers like Paul Auster, and editors of literary journals) quickly realized that Nat Tate was a complete fake and that they had been the victims of an elaborate set up." which goes against the rest of the page and downplays the hoax has two citations. One is the BBC, which says nothing of the kind and in fact implies everyone was fooled. The other is a hard-to-find Newsweek article, which does say no one was fooled, but it's simply the article saying so. The quotes in it at best indicate people didn't care, not that they figured it out. I really think that sentence needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.47.92 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would not be proper to remove a sourced statement; rather, it's ok if we adjust the prose to represent the fact that it's not clear how many were fooled or if they were in fact were fooled at all. Let's not censor the facts. Feel free to find a way to represent both sides, and keep both sources. 87Fan (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Emperors new clothes
shouldn't there be an allusion to the fable The Emperors New Clothes? Qazwiz (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? Otherwise it's original research, and not allowed. 87Fan (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)