This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments7 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply