Talk:The Roaring Lion

Section heading:"Theft" v. "2022 theft"

Why was it changed to "2022 theft"? Has it been stolen before? WilliamTravis (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No longer a section. Merged into fact that a signed print from the negative (not the original print) was stolen from the hotel. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Section heading: "Location"

Why do my editing changes get constantly undone? For example, the 'Location' of the Yousuf Karsh photograph of Winston Churchill should be where the image was originally photographed which was the Speaker's Chamber of the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa, not in the Fairmont Chateau Laurier in the same city. There are two Wikipedia editors continuously undoing this fact. It seems widely assumed the 'original' of this photograph is located in that hotel. Wrong! The Roaring Lion topic is to discuss the historical facts of its creation. When 'peacock prose' notations are posted, the word or sentence is changed accordingly to the guidelines but for some reason is undone. Winone65(talk)

Looking at my edit summaries, you have either removed sources or you have incorrectly added inline citations. Look at WP:REFB for an introduction on how to accomplish this. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the infobox field "Location"? You seem to be operating under the impression that it signifies "location where the photograph was shot", while the other editors are under the impression that it signifies "location where the original photograph is currently displayed". Both are sensible readings, but I do not know which the infobox is supposed to convey. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Section is now "Date and location of photography" I hope that suits everyone. David notMD (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD! 2001:1970:4000:9E:B161:578C:22BC:49A5 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's supposed to convey, per {{Infobox artwork/wikidata#Parameters}}, the Museum that currently houses the artwork, and city / general place in which the artwork is currently located, not where the image was originally photographed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Karsh made scores, if not hundreds of prints from the original negative. Is there verification of where the first print is located? David notMD (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

What was stolen from the hotel was a 20x24 print made and signed by Karsh. This was clearly not the "original" first print from the negative, as the article states that only later in his life was Karsh making and selling prints of that size. The 'original' described as 9.4x12.1 inches. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct David notMD (talk). The news media in general is misled to think this was 'the' original, which it was not. Far from it. Hundreds of these signed prints were developed from the original negative and given away as gifts from the photographer or were sold. The one from the Chateau Laurier was merely one of those original negative signed prints given to the hotel when Karsh closed his studio there in 1992. From then, the negative along with his vast collection of over 300,000 images and original negatives were graciously donated to the Library and Archives Canada the same year. The photographic image missing therefore is getting the reader confused in comparing this photographic 'portrait' as a painting 'portrait' with silly misleading statements in the news such as 'the original' or say for example from the hotel comparing the theft much like 'the Louvre losing the Mona Lisa'. The 'location' therefore needs to read, as correct, to describe where the image was photographed, in this case as a compromise, the city Ottawa as to not confuse the reader. 2001:1970:4000:9E:B161:578C:22BC:49A5 (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Above from Winone65 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The first print would, I imagine, have been a work print, made so that Karsh could evaluate the photo and whether/how further prints should be made. It's unlikely to have survived. Editors here seem to be tripping over the constraints of the "infobox", which seems to have been designed for works of art that, no matter how widely they may have been reproduced, have a sole acknowledged "original". Some photography (daguerrotypes, photograms) works that way; most does not. I'd just remove the infobox. But I hesitate, because many editors seem devoted to the silly things. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Hoary (talk)the parameters need to be changed so as to include notable works in photography displayed. We need to think outside the box on this one, thankfully though David notMD sensibly found a compromise. Winone65 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, correction, not displayed but where it was photographed. Winone65 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's pleasing to see that we're no longer at loggerheads, Winone65, but (unless I've misunderstood something) we're not yet in agreement. As I understand it, this species of infobox is designed to describe the unique "original" of a work of art. It has some attributes (e.g. "weight") that few people would be tempted to apply to photographs, but more ("condition", "owner", "accession", "preceded_by") that would be unsuitable for most but might be misused for them. (And yes, they could be used intelligently for some photographs: not only daguerrotypes and photograms but also for enhanced/dehanced prints by Miroslav Tichý, painted-over prints by Nobuyoshi Araki, and more -- but nevertheless only a minority of notable photographs.) If the template had additional attributes for photographs, those attributes could well be misunderstood and misapplied by people describing oil paintings and the like. It might be better to have an entirely new template/infobox for photographs. But in my opinion better still would be to have no infobox. Infoboxes are fine for subjects -- chemical elements, comets, ants, automobiles, baseball players -- that can indisputably and intelligently be described by certain attributes. For other subjects, they tend to repeat stuff that's anyway easily found in the text, to emphasize trivia, and to oversimplify and dumb down. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I wouldn't say loggerheads Hoary (talk), so much as a semantics debate really. I think your opinion is correct within the perimeters of the way the "infobox" was intended but justifiably I think David notMD (talk) found a legitimate compromise based on both where the photograph was taken in 1941 and what city the original negative now resides. I will defer to the editors' consensus. Winone65 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Referencing

The "filmsnotdead" page is an anonymous piece on a retailer's website; the "Iconic Photos" page is an anonymous piece on some blog. This is feeble stuff. Wikipedia needs better sources than these. -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

filmsnotdead ref deleted and better ref (Smithsonian magazine) used. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD. I've marked the other one "Better source needed". -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will find a more reliable source Winone65 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Found a more reliable source. Sorry for my lack of revision skills. New to learning this stuff. Winone65 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Article rating

I have upgraded the article to C-class. I hope no one objects. By the way, at Commons, this is a Featured Picture. David notMD (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)