Talk:Trump raised-fist photographs

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)

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)

Thanks, it's good now, and I've marked it as reviwed. —Alalch E. 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with this. It's a symbol. Csg95 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Like it or not, its symbolism has moved beyond Saturday’s events. PopTartsBowl (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 15 July 2024

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment Why hasn't anyone boldly edited the lead sentence before the requested move? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I would suggest something along the lines of Donald Trump raised fist photographs instead. —Mjks28 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Donald Trump raised fist photographs. - Sebbog13 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support alt Donald Trump raised fist photographs per WP:CONSISTENT title with Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign, Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign, Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign, Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture, Donald_Trump's_farewell_address and Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates. Per Hallucegenia, I doubt "fist pump." 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support this since it reads more natural to me than both the current title and the originally proposed title. S5A-0043^Talk 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support (BLP violation removed) 2A00:23C8:308D:9E00:2074:7D6B:3009:A7A4 (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The photo shows a guy with his fist in the air. No more, no less. ——Serial Number 54129 09:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reasons listed by others already and a few more of my own.--FeralOink (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose - the context is a fist pump, but the denotation is a dude with his fist in the air. I could see either way? BarntToust (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Vast majority of sources are describing him as raising his fist, not pumping his fist. This requested move borders on absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Comment: I don't have a preference between "raised-fist" and "fist-pump". However, if we're going to make the title less WP:CONCISE by adding words (like "Donald"), we should consider that there are lots of photographs of Trump with raised fist or fist pump; this article is about the post-assassination-attempt photos, so maybe "assassination attempt" should be added. Also, there are many photos of Trump with raised/pumped fist after the assassination attempt, so maybe we should specify that this article is about Vucci's photos. "Evan Vucci's photographs of Donald Trump after assassination attempt" is a longer title that more accurately describes the topic, for example; I don't prefer it, I like the shorter current title (disclosure: I chose the current title), but there is some logic to it. All that aside, it's pretty likely one of Vucci's photos will emerge as the "favorite," and it will be given a title, which will become the WP:COMMONNAME, and we can just move this page to that title once that happens. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per @Yekshemesh SimplyLouis27 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oh, I see now that you did... —Alalch E. 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, We need the full image on here. BarntToust (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic, I say go ahead and re-upload it per qualifications of proper representation. BarntToust (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The grey thing is the teleprompter btw. —Alalch E. 15:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)