Image talk:Rumsfeld - B5 - Rumsfeld.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to put a damper on anybody's work, as I don't think it's a poorly designed piece, but I would seriously contest this piece's neutrality. It is plain and simply a propoganda styled piece, even moreso with the description provided. I would like some people more familiar with policy around here to take a look at this, and if its neutrality is lacking, I'd ask that it be removed.
This image is propoganda. I have removed it from two articles. Kingturtle 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] From IFD
From WP:IFD:
- Image:Rumsfeld - B5 - Rumsfeld.jpg UE - an extremely troublesome image. Originally created by User:Nabarro as a collage of PD U.S. government images rather glorifying Donald Rumsfeld as "Humanitarian, Protector, and World Peace Advocate", it was somewhat questionably placed on Donald Rumsfeld on April 21 and on Operation Enduring Freedom on April 23. It was removed from both by User:Kingturtle on April 30, who described it as "propaganda" and "progandistic" in the edit summaries and on Naborro's talk page. The story gets worse after this. Naborro promptly took Kingturtle's words to heart and relabeled the image description as a "Propaganda Collage", and added it to Propaganda, a featured article, on May 9. On May 10, User:Stevertigo changed the image description to "Propaganda Collage for Operation Enduring Freedom", and added it back to that page as a "promotional poster" for the war. I have now removed the image from both pages; you can see it was becoming an established Wikipedia fact that this collage was official U.S. government propaganda, so much so that it headed a contentious feautured article for 31 hours without challenge. I cannot see what purpose this image can serve other than inadvertently spreading misinformation; this is a real object lesson in the imperfection of the Wiki.--Pharos 06:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? What does "established Wikipedia fact" mean? And unless you have some sort of amazing evidence that Naborro was acting in an official capacity as a representative of the United States, the collage was by no means "official U.S. government propaganda". I agree that the image is unencyclopedic and should be deleted---Propaganda should be illustrated by actual propaganda, not mockups we ourselves create---but I take issue with your tone. You seem to have an axe to grind here. grendel|khan 14:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- Grendel, forgive me if I was too strong in my tone; in my slight exasperation you seem to have misunderstood my words. It was just that I was amazed looking through the history to see how a small inadvertant misunderstanding among users spread and gave the false impression that Nabarro's image was some sort of U.S. government propaganda. I was specifically not saying that "Naborro was acting in an official capacity as a representative of the United States", rather I was saying the exact opposite, that this image gave that false impression. Thanks.--Pharos 01:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Pharos, grendel, khan thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your views on the image. I noticed that no one has disputed that the image, Image:Rumsfeld - B5 - Rumsfeld.jpg, is a collage and therefore would ask you to consider whether it could be placed on the collage page seeing there are no examples on that page? Thank you both again for your time and consideration. --Nabarro 21:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Naborro, I'm not sure that your well-designed image, which is specifically a photomontage, really fits to illustrate the concept; what would it be labelled exactly? The image currently at photomontage shows how the technique can illustrate something normally invisible; though your image does show a away to combine several positive images, the problem remains that it will probably still confuse people, who would think it is actually a Department of Defense image. However, if you want to put it on your personal userpage to illustrate your graphics skills or something, I'm certainly not opposed to that. Thanks.--Pharos 01:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Completely understand where you are coming from. Thank you for taking the time to explain everything. I have placed the image on my personal userpage User:Nabarro. Sorry to have caused any trouble. Now that I am using the image on my personal userpage as Pharos said I may be able to, is there any chance you could please prevent it from being deleted? P.S. Many thanks for the complement with regards to the image being "well-designed" Regards Nabarro. --Nabarro 06:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Naborro, I'm not sure that your well-designed image, which is specifically a photomontage, really fits to illustrate the concept; what would it be labelled exactly? The image currently at photomontage shows how the technique can illustrate something normally invisible; though your image does show a away to combine several positive images, the problem remains that it will probably still confuse people, who would think it is actually a Department of Defense image. However, if you want to put it on your personal userpage to illustrate your graphics skills or something, I'm certainly not opposed to that. Thanks.--Pharos 01:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? What does "established Wikipedia fact" mean? And unless you have some sort of amazing evidence that Naborro was acting in an official capacity as a representative of the United States, the collage was by no means "official U.S. government propaganda". I agree that the image is unencyclopedic and should be deleted---Propaganda should be illustrated by actual propaganda, not mockups we ourselves create---but I take issue with your tone. You seem to have an axe to grind here. grendel|khan 14:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
