Talk:Barack Obama "Joker" poster

possible sources

Extended content

Vanity Fair, "The Joke's on Obama Now, Apparently", August 4, 2009. Los Angeles Times, "Shepard Fairey has 'doubts' about intelligence of Obama Joker artist", August 10, 2009. The Washington Independent, "Alex Jones and the ‘Joker’ Meme", August 10, 2009. WFTV, "Post Office Vandalized With Obama 'Joker' Posters", August 12, 2009. Fox News, "Florida Police Question Vandalism Suspect About Obama Joker Poster", August 14, 2009. ABC News, video, "Locals Offended by 'Joker' Obama Pics", August 14, 2009. The Guardian, "US student comes forward as creator of Obama-Joker image", August 18, 2009. ABC News, "Artist of Obama "Joker" Poster Image Identified -- and He's Not a Conservative", August 18, 2009. Chicago Tribune, "Obama's not first 'Joker' POTUS", August 18, 2009. WLS-TV, video, "Artist speaks out about Obama image", August 19, 2009. The Irish Times, "The Lisbon lamp-posts", September 5, 2009. Northwest Florida Daily News, "Anti-Obama posters pop up near schools", September 9, 2009. The Charlotte Observer, "House disapproves of outburst", September 16, 2009. New York Magazine, "Who Is Barack Obama?: And why do people say such loopy, ugly things about him? The enduring rot in American politics.", September 20, 2009. The Baylor Lariat, "Hundreds protest Obama's A&M visit", October 16, 2009. The Politico, "Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven", October 16, 2009. The Atlantic, "It's Not (Overtly) About Race", October 19, 2009. The New York Times, "Ayn Rand’s Revenge", October 29, 2009. Politics Daily, "'V' is for Obama? Not So Fast", November 12, 2009. Orlando Sentinel, "Speech: It's not always free", November 16, 2009. St. Petersburg Times, "Tampabay.com's most searched topics in 2009", December 19, 2009. The Topeka Capital Journal, "Gun sales steady at area show", December 20, 2009.

Interesting Dilemma With Regards to Artist's Political Views

I am Firas Alkhateeb, the original artist of the poster. The article cites me as a "self-described liberal", which is not true. I am in fact an independent, but many media outlets misunderstood my supporting of SOME of Kucinich's ideas to constitute me being a liberal. I would just go ahead and change the article to say I'm an independent, but the news that wikipedia is supposed to cite all labels me as a liberal, thus, I suppose I can't prove it according to wiki standards. I'm a relative novice at wikipedia so I have no idea what to do in this situation. Khateeb88 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone has already removed the liberal description, which is fine. I've made a lot of changes to the article in the past two days, but it's still very much "under construction". One change I'm going to make (which will hopefully address the liberal description) is the following: Several news reports mention that critics of the poster initially thought the artist was a racist, white conservative. When the artist turned out to be a Palestinian American who (according to news reports) thought Kucinich would make a good president, the media mentioned how those critics were in fact wrong. APK say that you love me 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

POV violation

Resolved

 – First sentence reworded. No need for a dramatic rewrite.

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.

---

This needs a dramatic rewrite in order to comply with our WP:NPOV policy.--Windowasher (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you find POV? It's a controversial topic, but what kind of dramatic rewrite are you suggesting? APK say that you love me 13:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from tagging the article as POV; give the talk page a chance. This is where your concerns may be addressed. Thanks. APK say that you love me 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all Wikipedia is not the place to push political views. That is what this article was written for. It is not an image of our president it is a distorted image used for anti-Obama propoganda. Extremist groups do not own Wikipedia.--Windowasher (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC. You still haven't explained why the article needs a dramatic rewrite other than you find the poster offensive. (p.s. Please use edit summaries. Thanks.) APK say that you love me 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the rules, the article is more about a sales pitch for the image this is extreme pushing POV what don't you understand? Please read WP:NPOV--Windowasher (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the neutrality issue the editors are mostly single purpose accounts involved. These types of accounts are known to be problematic on Wiki.--Iamcheckerman (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoting images = not the proper way to construct articles.--Iamcheckerman (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Windowasher) Because I assumed you were a newcomer, I didn't know you were familiar with WP policies. I'm very familiar with WP:NPOV, but you haven't provided specific reasons why it violates that policy. The content is well-sourced, fairly represents all significant views, and makes no argument for or against the poster.

(to Iamcheckerman) When a newcomer mentions "single-purpose accounts" in his first edit, that speaks for itself. APK say that you love me 17:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This desecrated photo of our president isn’t a work of art. It’s more a work of vandalism and hardly constitutes enough notability to have its own article. The encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view this was not. Nor is it an image of our president.--Windowasher (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided specific reasons why the article is POV. I've already explained why it's notable, so refrain from adding the notability tag. The talk page is not a forum. APK say that you love me 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said it was a forum? I gave my reason, you can't start an article referring to that image as an image of United States president Barak Obama. It is not it is a desecrated photo of our president not the image Americans have of Barak Obama. The entire article is weasel worded. Your explanation why it is notable doesn't make it notable. Revert again and I will report vandalism.--Windowasher (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind to explain exactly what weasel worded statements you say? Because I can't find a single unsourced statement that would contain such language. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have seen it earlier today, it did say that the image was of the president of the United States. He never looked like that! That was the most ignorant thing I have ever seen on Wiki! How long did they get away with this?--Iamcheckerman (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it said it was an image of Barack Obama...because Barack Obama is the person in the picture. I changed it to make it clearer that it was digitally manipulated. But come on, any reasonable person would have figured that out. Or can anybody really believe that the President of the United States willingly dressed up as the Joker? Come on, you have got to be kidding me. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 04:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I went to check out the opposite, pro-Obama, "Hope" poster and the lead also describes it as "an image of Barack Obama." But it is pro-Obama, it really does not need to be clarified, it is already neutral isn't it? - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Need I remind you this is an encyclopedia, you don't assume that everyone will automatically know that the image is not what Barak Obama looks like. Right or wrong I don't care what the pro-Obama poster looks like that is another article, my concern right now is this one. Begining the article by introducing it as an image of our president was wrong! Wiki will not take on the look of the radical infowars.com! BTW that one isn't a reliable source for this article either. Their image is a free commercial for their website and should be removed.--Iamcheckerman (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Infowars.com is not used a source, but Alex Jones is a pretty good example of the kind of right-wing crackpots that have adopted the image. Jpatokal (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. First we were biased, then we were weasels, and now we copyvio? - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 17:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no good reason to include it in the article other than promoting the organization or an attempt to spread anti-Obama sentiments.--Iamcheckerman (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is need. That picture shows that the poster has been posted in public spaces. If the problem is promoting a site against Obama then that should have been written out, not the whole image. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 20:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you add that kind of bad content it will just be removed in order to make the article comply with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV policy. It is not needed in the article. Wikipedia is not a directory you don’t just add pictures of Obama to the article every time somebody scribbles obscenities on them.--Iamcheckerman (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The image was not added for the obscenities written over it. It is there to illustrate why the picture became notable and the controversy that has sparked around it. I agree that there is no need to illustrate every time someone vandalizes it, but the image here illustrates notability. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I had was the starting line, thank you RUL3R for correcting that mess. The rest I can probably live with. I will remove the warning.--Windowasher (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Godlike Productions

I first saw the poster on a popular forum called Godlike Productions. Obama's joker portrait was hanging on the front page of the forum for several consecutive weeks. I'm not sure to what extent the forum contributed to popularizing the poster, but it probably did help to give it a street value among average Internet users. ADM (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, claiming the forum had anything to do with the image's rise in popularity would be original research. A quick Google search ("Godlike Productions" Obama joker) results in 32 hits, none of which could be considered reliable sources. APK because, he says, it's true 11:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone made the same claim on this LA Times blog. [1] I recognize that better research and sources would be needed for this though. ADM (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim was made in the comment section, so that's definitely not reliable. APK because, he says, it's true 12:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Joker an anarchist?

Would mentioning this rather odd comparison be appropriate for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.228.158 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No 68.55.11.96 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this article even really necessary?

II just wonder if this article is even neccesary for Wikipedia. I think it would work better as an article chapter on the Dark Knight article. Don't get me wrong, it is an informative article and everything, but I think it would be better suited for The Dark Knight (film) article. Dpm12 - 22 February 2011, 2:57 PM PST.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama "Joker" poster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920002454/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105622&sectionid=351020605 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105622&sectionid=351020605

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)