Talk:Unconditional Surrender (statue)

Proposed merge
The section of the Kitsch article on Unconditional Surrender constitutes more than a quarter of the article's total length and gives its subject undue weight in the context of what is supposed to be a general article on kitsch. Also, it devolves into a discussion of secondary issues such as the statue's alleged copyright infringement that have no direct connection to the topic of kitsch (or at least none that is explained or justified in the article). This material cites several reliable sources and describes a notable subject, but it belongs in a separate article, not on the Kitsch page.

Please comment if you agree or disagree. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Decline proposal
This section is germane to the article and has been a portion of the article for a long time. This article deals with Kitsch and the section is a long standing portion of it.

As a new editor and one not having the advantage of having participated in the development of this article, you created a new article entitled Unconditional Surrender (statue) and moved this section to it. I returned the copy and restored the article, giving my opinion in the revision.

The new article seems redundant and created simply for this relocation because it has nothing to do with all of the other versions of the statue. It is inadequate for the topic at the same time because it is so limited in its discussion. Extensive coverage of reactions to the statues exists for most of the locations hosting them. There are many articles discussing the statues built under this name and the issues surrounding them. An image has been used that is unrelated to existing copy and without explanation -- leaving our readers without an encyclopedic discussion of the subject.

The issues are fully discussed along with other statues by Johnson at his own page where all of his other statues are listed. He is not a well respected sculptor, most of his works are not even considered original, and extensive discussion of this one that is likely to be the subject of legal action upon sale seems pointless. They all may have to be destroyed, depending upon the legal decision.

If you wish to create an article on these statues alone, there being an entire series of them, it needs to be more extensive and thoroughly documented. I'll watch what you build if you decide to proceed with it, but have no interest in participation -- save critical assessment. 83d40m (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)