Talk:V-J Day in Times Square/Archive 1

From Alfred Eisenstaedt

The material in this article as it stands now (3 August 07) is a barely retouched version of what was written within the article on Alfred Eisenstaedt. Contrary to what a quick glance at the article's edit history might suggest, it's not by me (and it strikes me as mediocre). -- Hoary 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy of an AP article?

Portions of this article are taken word for word from an article by the AP. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_us/kissing_sailor_1;_ylt=AtZvuKNpyW0vDj.Ywu_On9dsaMYA ... added at 16:32, 4 August 2007 by 24.4.209.123

Yes, but how exactly do you cite them in the article? I'd say citing sources in Wikipedia is the second hardest thing to do, after uploading and choosing the correct copyright for pictures. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and citing references still gives me trouble, even when looking at the article on how to do it. We'll probably have to wait for a very experienced Wikipedian before it can be done. Kevin 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, Kevin, at least in principle. You find a reliable source. You read and digest what it says. You summarize as much as possible of what it says in your own words. (If the exact wording is particularly significant, you put that part in quotation marks, and you make no change whatever to what's within those quotation marks other than as clearly explained in any style guide: "Chicago", "MLA", etc., or indeed the Wikipedia's own "MoS".) You then use a <ref>footnote</ref> to identify the source. If you notice plagiarism by somebody else, or are told of it, you remove it, immediately. You can think later about how best to edit the article. -- Hoary 01:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the plagiarism. I have hurriedly removed everything that I noticed was plagiarized. If I have missed anything (if there's any more here that's plagiarized), please remove that too. -- Hoary 01:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Two photographs

If you google this image you will find that there are actually two photographs of the same event, taken from different camera angles. This is quite obvious from looking at the pictures.

Did Alfred Eisenstaedt take two pictures? Or did two separate people take pictures? How long did this kiss last? It must have lasted for a good long while if he was able to take two pictures

You thinking of Kissing the War Goodbye? Greswik 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now suggested that these two articles be merged, as the second isn't really an iconic photograph in itself.--Pharos 05:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Where would you prefer to discuss this: in this talk page or in the other talk page? -- Hoary 06:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This one, I suppose (as that's where the architecture of the merge templates directs it).--Pharos 06:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.

I don't think that a photo has to be "iconic" to deserve an article. This photo is not iconic. Does it deserve an article? Borderline, I think. Let's put it aside for a moment.

How about the other one? It's very well known, it's "iconic" (to those who like that word), and by many critics' accounts it's excellent. Surely it deserves an article.

It doesn't really get one. Instead, the article's largely a "human-interest" story about who was or might have been or wasn't in the photo. (These questions may be interesting, but in the end I think they'll have little bearing on the photo for most of its viewers.) And this is the way WP articles ostensibly about photos seem to work.

If it's a human-interest story, clearly it's only one human-interest story. -- Hoary 06:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to argue against merge; they are, after all, two completely different images. But if consensus says merge, I'll have no major problem with it. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if "iconic" is the notabiliity standard, but we do have very few articles on individual photographs, and these all generally cover either (1) a photograph that is a significant artwork in itself (comparable to our articles on individual paintings) or (2) a photograph that has become a part of the public consciousness through media exposure. Kissing the War Goodbye seems to me to be neither, and additionally it doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in secondary sources. It would not really be notable as a photograph in itself, but only as an adjunct to the story behind the highly notable photograph V–J day in Times Square. And yes, the "human-interest" part is probably played up too much, but that's a separate issue, no?--Pharos 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that. I don't claim that there is no reason for an article on Victor Jorgensen, but none is yet obvious in that article; if VJ (good choice of initials there) has an article, it's odd for a link to his photo from that article to go to an article that in principle is about a photo by an entirely different photographer (even if in practice the article is primarily about who was in both photos). -- Hoary 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't honestly judge whether VJ deserves an article, because I'm not familiar with the extent of his career at all; I suppose it is perfectly possible for a notable photographer not to have individually notable photographs. His article has exactly one edit and was created less than a month ago; and it actually doesn't link to the Kissing the War Goodbye article anyway. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I've just discovered that VJ's photo was published in The New York Times the day after the Eisenstaedt photo was in LIFE (which does I suppose make it slightly more significant than if it had just sat in a government archive).--Pharos 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[Bouncing left] I don't think Google is necessarily a good measure of notability, but fwiw googling Jorgensen doesn't seem to show up anything substantial beyond this one picture; on the other hand, the picture does get a lot of hits and even seems to be marketed as "iconic" in that it's the kind of thing that's sold on posters; this is one example among many. I start to think that after all it might be noteworthy (in a bean-counting as well as topical sense, but perhaps not only in these senses). -- Hoary 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We still need actual secondary sources that cover this topic in depth—otherwise there's literally nothing to write about. I don't think these online poster merchants are a good measure of notability because they essentially work on print on demand, a system where there is a negligible cost to add one more image to their digital catalog, and in this instance the marketing of the Jorgensen photo is likely influenced by the fact that it is in the public domain (being a product of the US government), while the Eisenstaedt photo is not.--Pharos 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you find any other secondary sources? I found the Columbia Forum one (which someone has apparently just added to the other article), which is fairly minor, and that appears to be just about it. There's no way that anyone could write more than a very-short paragraph directly on the Jorgensen photo, so I really don't see the reason not to have the comprehensive account merged into the one article here.--Pharos 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've merged it. I realize this involved a little boldness on my part, but I hope you will agree it was a sensible action given the lack of necessary published sources for an independent article, as well as the lack of any prospect that such sources could surface in the future.--Pharos 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)