Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump raised-fist photographs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alalch E. (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 12 August 2024 (→Requested move 12 August 2024: fix link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I have blanked-and-redirected this article to its parent article at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump with the following edit summary WP:REDUNDANTFORK - content is the same as in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump; restore when there is something more to add or add it to the parent article then split it off and leave a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; duplicating content like this is not acceptable

—Alalch E. 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this article existed and created it again in slightly different form with additional sources. So I did a WP:ROUNDROBIN swap of this page and the page I created (which is now at Donald Trump raised fist photograph, the former title of this page); I kept the plural title because it's about multiple photographs, not one. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's good now, and I've marked it as reviwed. —Alalch E. 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture too, really?

This is yet another pointless fork. Whatever I said about the article for Thomas Matthew Crooks applies even more for this. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about it is pointless? This image has become a defining symbol of a prominent American Presidential nominee and is being covered extremely extensively--both critically by people against Trump (who call it "an opportunity to tout conspiracy theories and stoke political tensions" etc) and his supporters who use it to show their candidate's strength despite being centimeters from death. There is no doubt that the article meets WP:SIGCOV NorthropChicken (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. It's a symbol. Csg95 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Like it or not, its symbolism has moved beyond Saturday’s events. PopTartsBowl (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has clearly and undeniably become something far greater than its immediate context. Yet you continue to deny it despite clear evidence. @LilianaUwU, WP:STICK. BarntToust (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying it. I've come to realize that maybe it is a historic picture, but I can't really snow close/withdraw the AfD since some people have sided with my original point. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust You've made 9 edits to the AfD and a whopping 32 to the FfD, which looks like bludgeoning. "Drop the stick" applies both ways, and as the essay you linked notes, applies regardless of whether you're "winning" or "losing". I think your opinions on deletion of both items are clearly expressed and recommend focusing on the content instead. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm being proactive, which is within my right, as it is Liliana's to continue her concerns until this all comes to a close. It is unwise to suggest that I focus on content; I have been adding source after source on this subject, content and more. "bludgeoning" is as non-definitive to use here as stick is. Perhaps your interest in my history with this discussion is also proactive? I'll hold your behaviour to the same standards I view mine in. I'm going to do more miscellaneous work perhaps unrelated to this subject. We are both citing essays, so I can't say we've actually done anything here, @Dylnuge. Do have a nice one, though! BarntToust (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps your interest in my history with this discussion is also proactive?" is a weird aspersion to cast, seeing as my only contribution at either discussion was to note that the file itself wasn't eligible for speedy deletion. I think you misunderstand me; I'm just trying to let you know how this appears to onlookers. Consider it a friendly heads-up, not anything more severe than that. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do, I see where you're coming from on here, and I appreciate it. I really do. I thank you for looking out for how things can be perceived. Have a nice one, @Dylnuge! Take care. BarntToust (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Some people are treating this photo like it's the next V-J Day in Times Square or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I'd default to not creating this article, but since it's here I guess we'll see how we feel about it a year from now and reconsider deletion. Fnordware (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title could use some work?

I'm not sure what would be a good alternative but "Trump raised fist photographs" feels too vague, like it could apply to him raising his fist in any other photograph. CaptainJZH (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Until/unless the photo(s) receive a proper name, a more descriptive title might be necessary. Perhaps something along the lines of “Post-Trump Assassination Attempt Photos”? PopTartsBowl (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're on the right track there — maybe something like "Post-Assassination Attempt Photographs of Donald Trump"? CaptainJZH (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the article should be narrowed down to the one specific photo from Vucci (the one on the page), rather than an article about all of the photos taken around this time. The page could get a more specific title from there. Twinbros04 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not about all the photos taken around this time. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps renaming it "Evan Vucci's Photographs of the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump" would work since surely he wasn't the only one who captured the raised fist on camera? CaptainJZH (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, something like “Donald Trump post-assassination-attempt Evan Vucci photographs” would work better, as the significance and instant classicality of the photos hinge specifically on Vucci’s camerawork. HejjoDude (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a title along those lines would be good, but more consise if possible. Mjks28 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Based on the strength of the arguments as well as the votes, the support side mainly cited WP:CONSISTENCY, as well as attributing sources for proof. The Oppose side mainly agrees that "the title is okay" or attribute their thoughts to photos. That's consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump raised fist photographs → Donald Trump fist pump photographs – While his fist is raised in the images, he was actually carrying out a fist pump while being escorted off stage. Also "Trump raised fist" doesn't include the first name of the main subject of the photograph, and just doesn't sound right. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - albeit for different reasons (ambiguous language). "Trump raised fist photographs"? Which fist photographs did he raise? For this reason I don't mind changing it to any other title as long as there's no ambiguity. Yekshemesh (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This doesn't sound good at all. "Photographs of Trump after assassination attempt" could be a solution perhaps? Furthermore, the issue about 'pump' or 'raise' would no longer arise. And finally, this article is only about this one case, not about other times him raising or pumping fist(s). Stefan Verdorie (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone hyphenated "raised-fist". I no longer object to the article title, save that perhaps it could be named better. Adding a hyphen does wonders for disambiguating! Yekshemesh (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct way to handle the grammar problem is to fix the grammar: "Trump raised-fist photographs" Jjamison (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will perform this move as a typographical correction (no prejudice on the outcome of this RM; except if it passes, it should be "fist-pump" for the same reason: it's an adjective). Levivich (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The video shows that we was pumping his fist; this photograph shows a man holding his fist up in defiance. It doesn't matter what was actually happening at the time, iconic photographs like this acquire a life of their own. Hallucegenia (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A photograph may show a fist, but not what's done with it. It can not show a movement, such as pumping. It could, in theory, insinuate it but this is not even the case here. Stefan Verdorie (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not accurate. Of the sources cited in the article, Time, the Kennicott WaPo article, AJC, Politico, Australian, Atlantic, Hindustan Times, and India Today say Trump "pumped" his fist. New Yorker, Telegraph, the Barr WaPo article, DW, and Spectator say he "raised" his fist. Levivich (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To clarify the record:

  • At the time the above RM was submitted (at 05:54, 15 July 2024 UTC), the title was Trump raised fist photographs (without "Donald" and without a hyphen) and the proposed title was Donald Trump fist pump photographs (emphasis added). Here is the diff.
  • While the discussion was ongoing, the article was moved (at 14:57, 15 July 2024 UTC) to Trump raised-fist photographs (adding a hyphen). Here is the diff.
  • The original RM suggestion was then edited (at 00:26, 17 July 2024 UTC) to add the hyphen that had been added to the current title. Here is the diff. The hyphenation changes may have somewhat confused that aspect of the discussions.
  • When the RM was closed, it was first moved to Donald Trump fist pump photographs (at 17:58, 9 August 2024 UTC). After some discussion on the closer's User talk page, it was determined that this was a mistake, and the article was moved to Donald Trump raised fist photographs (at 13:22, 12 August 2024 UTC‎).
  • I then changed the record of the original proposal back to what it said before (at 16:23, 12 August 2024‎ UTC).
  • At that point, a new RM was submitted to propose adding the hyphen again (at 16:41, 12 August 2024 UTC).

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped image possibly unfair to author

@Cryptic: (pinging you as one of the contributors to the file and someone who is experienced with files) The caption currently says: One of Vucci's photographs, .... But it is a derivative of his photograph as his composition is not fully represented by the significantly cropped version currently used. His intact image is what he intended to publish and it is that intact image (among other intact images from the same series) that is discussed in our article. Certainly, the original image with its proportions, its centering, and its geometry is better artistically. The image is cropped to reduce the extent of its use, but I think that this could be countereffective with regard to respecting the author's interests, since we are talking about Vucci's work, but are then showing a degraded version of his work. I think that for the purposes of this article, the cropping should be undone; only resizing seems appropriate, but not cropping (only speaking in the context of this article). What are your and other editors' thoughts? —Alalch E. 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said at the FFD that we should be using the uncropped version - not even User:RodRabelo7's crop, which omits the admittedly-unsightly grey whatever-it-is box off to the left. That's even more the case in this article, which discusses the composition of the photos directly, than it was in the main assassination article, where there was e.g. at least some case to be made to make Trump's injuries more visible. —Cryptic 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now that you did... —Alalch E. 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, We need the full image on here. BarntToust (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic, I say go ahead and re-upload it per qualifications of proper representation. BarntToust (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The grey thing is the teleprompter btw. —Alalch E. 15:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should have an uncropped version. I also think we should have both open- and closed-mouth variants. So two versions, at least one of which should be uncropped. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be hard to justify, NFCC-wise. I'm of the opinion we should probably wait at least a couple days until we have a better sense of what our sources consider the canonical version.
Another option, especially if the uncropped version is unclear at web resolution - I haven't done a test reduction - is to have a full uncropped version as the main image, with a zoomed-in detail image from a different version. —Cryptic 15:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do a full image, the uncropped mouth-open version. It makes the most sense. BarntToust (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This terrible crop just destroys the composition of the photo, which is detrimental to the reader's understanding of why it is iconic. There is alternative like CBC news, but please don't crop it as a very small square. SCP-2000 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the linked explanation, strongly agree with SCP-2000. Don't crop as the very small square in current use.--FeralOink (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I did my best with the fair-use crop. However, yeah, the full image can and should be used. Bremps... 05:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added wording noting this is a crop in [1]. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need the uncropped image. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the uncropped image has to be used. The image is the artist's composition; you can't just crop out a large portion of it, including a Secret Service agent shielding Trump's body with his own. The "unsightly grey thing" is the teleprompter. I assume this image is a screenshot of part of the image on Business Insider, and its summary cites Business Insider as the original publication. According to the caption underneath the image in every news media I have seen says ""Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP". If it's OK for use to use screenshots from newspapers, then we could make low-res screenshots of both images in this Guardian article and use those. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to the uncropped version per consensus here. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys I found a less cropped version of the picture here (archive). 103.66.132.62 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No need for standalone Jackwagsy (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We just had this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump raised fist photographs. It may be reasonable to revisit in a year or so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad Jackwagsy (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical information

I'd say, this article should include some technical information, akin to the one for the similarly iconic Zapruder film, or the one on another photo the Trump one here is widely compared to already, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. What camera (and lens) did Vucci use? What shutter speed, ISO, f-stop, focal length? I've heard an interview quoting him on the radio saying he managed to post his photos of the incident within seconds or minutes, without even being able to check what they looked like, before Secret Service rounded up all the reporters inside an electro-magnetically shielded room without mobile reception for half an hour or so, and only once they let him out, he could check his phone to see media worldwide was saying he'd just shot the photo of the decade. That information makes it pretty clear he didn't shoot it on film, but did he shoot it on a DSLR or on a cellphone? --2003:DA:CF11:CF77:9082:7795:7704:9A65 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be good to add to this article, if we had a source that gave that information. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got *SOME TINY BITS* of technical information so far that we can use them in the article:
  • This TIME MAGAZINE article has the following: Vucci shot a lot of the event with a long (tele) lens, and when the assassination attempt unfolded, with Trump getting back to his feet and pretty much started to actively break out from his bodyguards, Vucci darted to the right end of the stage where he could tell they would lead Trump down the stairs, he got really close and switched to a wide lens (not in the article, but an educated guess from his photos tells me that either his lens has an enormous zoom range, or he had several cameras hanging on him with different lenses to be able to switch so fast), to make his most iconic wide-angle and low-angle shots of the incident. While the entire incident was unfolding, Vucci was using a common technique for modern press photographers today, which is that his camera was hooked up to a hotspot, so his photos were sent to his editor immediately, but Vucci himself wasn't able to look at them.
  • This GUARDIAN article relates the story of how Secret Service immediately rounded up all the press reporters in a tent with zero mobile phone signal, and it took them 45 minutes to let him out, so he could finally check his phone and see his own photos for the first time and find the two fist-pumping shots (closed mouth and open mouth) all over social media worldwide already.
  • This EURONEWS article also quotes Vucci with saying that he deliberately kept the flag in the image "to show this as the defining moment where we are as a country right now". That EURONEWS article also relates a significant observation made by an X user, comparing Vucci to Robert J. Oppenheimer in that he could soon find his work to be out of control and used in ways he may not condone.
  • This HINDUSTAN TIMES article includes a still from a cellphone video of Vucci taking the photos. I'm afraid the resolution is not good enough to tell his camera model, but it just about looks like he's using a DSLR.
  • Also of note: The original AP entry to Vucci's most iconic photo from the series documents that he took the photo at exactly 8:16pm local time.
All of those articles also mention that not only has Vucci covered Trump's career for years, he's also used to taking photos in crisis areas under heavy fire, as he's also documented active war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, and the articles emphasize how that experience prepared him for this incident, so that he was able to "just do his job", as he calls it in those articles. --2003:DA:CF01:8661:6CFD:7EC4:D5EE:E694 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of like pondering what kind of paper Shakespeare used to write his plays... absolutely trivial and rather missing the point. One of the reasons Wikipedia insists on secondary sources is not just to ensure veracity, but to ensure that a thing really deserves to be in the article to begin with. If no reliable sources are talking about a thing, does it really belong here? Marcus Markup (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing the time it takes for reliable sources to cover more than just political or social aspects with notability. The very fact it's a common standard all over Wikipedia to include technical information in articles on iconic media recordings, all with reliable sources for the technical information, should be proof enough how relevant these informations are from an objective POV, even if you yourself may disagree for irrelevant personal reasons. --2003:DA:CF25:5A49:5108:9080:38F4:8276 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vucci .. only?

Doug Mills of the New York Times took this photograph of Trump raising his fist. The article seems to only discuss Vucci. It's kind of strange to focus on a single photographer and photograph this early on, when other photographers and photographs exist. Sort of picking winners.

Maybe an RM and additional articles:

Or Combine:


-- GreenC 05:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last option is the most sensible and the title is written in an encyclopedic style. 👍 Like Bremps... 19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable sources for the notability of the other photos? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times attributes "The still images .. by Doug Mills of The New York Times, and by photographers from The Associated Press and Reuters". If the AP photo is the anointed photo because of the flag's patriotic motif we can discuss that in the article, but AP is only one of at least 3 photo series from the event, as noted by a reliable source. -- GreenC 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is titled in a way that should include other photographs of Trump with a raised fist, so I think it is appropriate to discuss them on this article (if someone wants to go ahead and do that). I agree that the creation of photographer-specific articles would be appropriate for specific images. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Vucci raised-fist photographs are the only notable raised-fist photographs. Mills' bullet-trail photograph may also be notable, but I see no reason why an article about that photo should be merged with an article about Vucci's photos. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several photographs out of the series Vucci took at the Butler rally that have been called "the" iconic photograph by different newspapers. Also, the fist-pump has been a regular show of belligerence at his campaign rallies and events, long before his fellow-Republican shot at him. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regular show 💀 CheeseyHead (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art

--Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job

This is turning out to be a nice article, but the title is terrible. Otherwise, nice work. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of the Photograph

The "Reception" section of the article seems a bit cluttered. WP:TRIV says we should "avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information," but that seems to be what's happening to me. I'm reading down the list and seeing 10+ entries that mention that "so and so person" said that the image would "go down in history." Many of these entries don't even seem to be WP:RELEVANT, especially the stances of "India Today" and the "Hindustan Times". I would recommend we create a collapsed paragraph indicating that "multiple people have expressed that the photograph has significant historic value," or something along those lines, or restrict the reception paragraph to containing strictly WP:RELEVANT individuals.

Thoughts? MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India Today and Hindustan Times are not relevant, why again? —Alalch E. 23:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned India Today and Hindustand Times as examples from the list. I'm not saying we should remove only them specifically.
There are likely thousands of different opinions that people have made about this photograph both on social media and on reputable news sources, but just because the source talks about the article's subject doesn't make it necessary to include it (see WP:ONUS). If we were to include every single reaction to the photograph, we wouldn't be able to scroll to the bottom of the article.
With that in mind, I just don't see the reason to include the stance of many of the entries in "Receptions" in the first place. Why include India Today over the New York Times and why Timothy Garton Ash over some other historian? They don't seem to be specifically WP:NOTABLE over other newspapers or historians.
The point is, the section currently seems to be a conglomeration of miscellaneous information that could be collapsed into one or two paragraphs over how the "majority of people" responded to the image. (maybe with India Today, Hindustan Times, or some of the other people listed cited as a source.) MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 00:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely thousands of different opinions that people have made about this photograph both on social media and on reputable news sources Yes, which is why we don't include opinions from social media, just reputable news sources. There aren't thousands of reviews of the photograph published in WP:RS, probably more like a dozen or two.
Why include India Today over the New York Times and why Timothy Garton Ash over some other historian? We don't include India Today over NYT, we include both. We include Ash because his opinion was reported by an RS. If another historian's opinion were reported by an RS, we should include that, too.
The point is, the section currently seems to be a conglomeration of miscellaneous information that could be collapsed into one or two paragraphs over how the "majority of people" responded to the image. Analysis of the photograph is not "miscellaneous information." What we absolutely can't do is take a handful of opinions and call it how the "majority of people" responded to the image; we'd need an RS for that, and I doubt any RS will make claims about how a majority of people responded to an artwork.
Nevertheless, there probably is or will be some RS published that reviews the reviews, which we could cite for broader statements instead of relying on individual reviews. Maybe we'll eventually have enough bona fide art criticism to supplant hot takes from daily newspapers. And what's there now can probably be consolidated or otherwise shortened. But reviews aren't trivia or lists of miscellaneous information. This is an article about an artwork: background, composition, and reception, are the three major parts of such an article (we are missing production/materials because we don't have that info yet). Levivich (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I organized the content from the reception section into proper subsections [2]. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this organization and think there are way too many subsections. Levivich (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to boldly merge some sections or even completely redo the organization. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title in infobox

@Another Believer (and everyone): do you think setting the infobox |title= inappropriately suggests to the reader that this is the title of the photograph(s)? Levivich (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly if others prefer to avoid a title, but I don't think I've ever seen an infobox with the title field purposely avoided altogether. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Sohom Datta talk 11:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Hallucegenia (talk) and Levivich (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

User:WoodElf 02:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: Prose was checked for copyright violations; no issues arose. A number of references were spot-checked for verification; no issues arose. All three hooks are verified, but I strongly prefer and recommend ALT2. Yue🌙 17:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

The Signpost, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessary.

  • The majority of the article consists of journalist analysis and commentary. The large volume of such commentary is outside the scope of encyclopedic material.
  • The relevant content of this article can be summarized in 2-4 paragraphs and merged with the “attempted assassination” article.
  • Tangent forks such as this one scatter information about the main event across multiple pages and hinder navigation/organization.

Just because there is a lot of coverage available on one particular subject, is not enough reason to merit an article, especially when it is mergeable to a larger event (see WP:Notability). 2600:1700:FD0:E200:BDF3:B207:D0EE:AA08 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically asking us to delete articles such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (do you expect us to merge it into Battle of Iwo Jima?), Liberty Leading the People (merge it into July Revolution?), Zapruder film (merge it into Assassination of John F. Kennedy?), Triumph of the Will (merge it into Nuremberg rallies?), and countless others. --2003:DA:CF25:5A49:5108:9080:38F4:8276 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo was just taken a few weeks ago, and already some are placing it on par with those great historical photographs. Really? WP:TOOSOON. -- GreenC 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TOOSOON:

"For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources."

Clearly this has been verifiable notable due to discussion around the world and in many different reliable sources.
You can't just post the title of a Wikipedia rule out of context.
Also, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was taken in 1945, and won a Pulitzer Prize that same year, so it was notable very shortly after it was taken, which is kind of the opposite of what you're saying is possible with famous/historical photographs. MightyLebowski (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misread consensus?

As @Levivich has pointed out, further discussion should take place at User Talk:ToadetteEdit#Trump raised-fist photographs. –Gluonz talk contribs 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was the consensus of the above move discussion misinterpreted? To me, the result seems closer to no consensus. A majority, not insignificant, seems to have opposed the move. –Gluonz talk contribs 02:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who had requested the move, I am also confused as to why it was moved. There was a large concensus, and most people opposed the move. But, also see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even legal to close a move request without stating the consensus or rationale why one is is performing the move? Not to mention 99% of the people voting were against the move. --2003:DA:CF25:5A93:150E:F3E:4123:43A6 (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, my preference would probably be for a hyphenated title - in this case, Donald Trump fist-pump photographs. –Gluonz talk contribs 15:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, discussion of the close is at the closer's user talk page: User Talk:ToadetteEdit#Trump raised-fist photographs. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 12 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. WP:RMEC-WP:SNOW: Non-contentious grammar fix. Undoing the incremental improvement of the title by the way of not including the hyphen to "raised fist" (which had been added and was not contested; on the contrary, multiple editors had noted that the hyphen is needed in the previous RM) when closing the previous RM was an obvious mistake that can be understood as a technical error. See Special:Diff/1239950381/1239969756 for context. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 23:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump raised fist photographs → Donald Trump raised-fist photographs – The hyphenation of the previous title seems to have been more correct in clarifying the compound modifier; therefore, I am requesting that this hyphenation be restored in the new title. –Gluonz talk contribs 16:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_raised-fist_photographs&oldid=1240003640"