Talk:Battle of Ticinus

Image choices

I believe it generally goes against WP:PERTINENCE to include images of historical events that aren't reasonably contemporary or that are known to have been with the objective of realism. We know perfectly well that early modern artists had a very incomplete idea of ancient events. They lacked access to scientifically sound historical research and had ideas and conceptions about the period that are very different from today. Not even early historians from the 18th century, like Edward Gibbon, would be considered acceptable to cite directly for fact in an article about Roman history. So why should we use Silvestre David Mirys as the main depiction for this event?

I don't see a problem of having early modern depictions of battles in articles as long as long as we know that they're not just idealized fantasies. Historiography is something that's sorely lacking in a lot of articles and if there's a discussion of it, an 18th century illustration is a very nice addition. But I believe it's deeply problematic to plaster infoboxes with illustrations that reflect an event from the eyes of a completely different, unrelated era. Peter ^Isotalo 18:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nicely put. I am inclined to agree in this case. We know that the image in question has little connection with what modern historians believe happened, so we are in danger of actively misinforming readers by including it, especially so prominently. Peter, given that the article was approved with the image in it at FAC you may wish to ping the reviewers who supported promotion - who can be found here - to nail down backing to change the consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges:, @FunkMonk:, @Dudley Miles: Peter ^Isotalo 21:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias and Nikkimaria: Your views on the suggestion above would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that if nothing more accurate can be found, it's ok to use something like this, as long as it's clearly noted in the caption that it's not a contemporary illustration, and by who and when it was made (and possible inaccuracies pointed out). If something more directly related can be found, I still think this image can be used somewhere else in the article, as in itself, it also shows the historical significance of the event, since someone found it worth lustrating so long after. We have similar issues in the paleontology project, where we don't show historical, inaccurate restorations of for example dinosaurs in the infobox or description section, but keep them in the more retrospective history/taxonomy/discovery sections. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. I'd point out that in the rare cases where ancient images of battles exist, they are probably only more accurate in terms of arms and clothing. In the same way, very many of our articles on medieval battles are illustrated by miniatures from Flemish workshops of say 1460-90, which are often very attractive but only represent the action in very broad conventional terms. Images, especially in an FA, should not be removed without discussion, based on a personal position. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, as long as some context is provided I don't think it is a huge issue. Contemporary images can often be problematic for the purposes of propaganda, or at least nationalistic pride, and even modern photographs are only a slice of time which can't represent a whole battle. As long as we explain to the viewer what we are showing, and the image isn't demonstrably false or clearly misleading, it's fine. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 06:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The image under discussion

Disclaimer: came here following a similar discussion elsewhere. Agree with commenters above, especially the fact that most historical images are neither contemporary nor realistic, and that the point rather is that the very existence of images made centuries after the fact illustrates the subject's historical significance and enduring legacy. I think this type of illustrative value should be at the heart of MOS:PERTINENCE as applied to historical subjects.

That said, not all images are created equal, and some may be inappropriate for various reasons. E.g., because they deviate too far from the subject's main context, or because the image itself is not notable enough to actually illustrate the subject's notability. Both points here may be somewhat questionable with regard to the image currently used in this article (see left), but like others here I think that while far from ideal, it's good enough. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the guiding principle here should be the approach to illustrations of extinct animals. The presumption should be that an image that is not contemporary must by default be subject to critical scrutiny. Claiming that all images are inaccurate is not at all helpful and sidesteps are responsibility to strive for verifiability. There's clearly a huge difference between the highly romanticized and stylized images by 18th century artists and, say, and the more terse, documentary style of a modern illustrator.[1] (Not saying the linked image is actually accurate but that it is focused on portraying an actual battle scene, not to glorify deeds of individual heroism.)

One thing I'm quite strongly opposed to is a "good enough" approach. Illustrating an article is not a goal in to itself. Images liven up articles and pique the interest of readers, but they should be not be presumed to be necessary just because they exist. Images Wikipedia uses in infoboxes and other places of prominence can become a pseudo-official representation of a historic event. I think we should be a lot more conscious of this and favor a minimum of accuracy of aesthetic concerns. If I was writing about a historical topic, I would absolutely favor a slightly boring (but accurate) location map over a pretty engraving from the late 1700s. Peter ^Isotalo 18:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)