Jump to content

Talk:War photography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the History section: In the James Robertson (photographer) article it is stated he was one of the first war photographers. --euyyn 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually wrong. Robertson took over photographing the Crimean War for the British government from Roger Fenton. -Owen

First war photographer

[edit]

Carol Popp de Szathmàri preceded Fenton by 1 year. In 1854 he took some of the the first war pics. And not "artistic", staged war pictures, but real ones. Right now, the order is:

  • An American anonymous photographer, which took some daguerrotypes during the war between USA and Mexico, in 1847 (2 can be seen here).
  • Carol Popp de Szathmàri (Hungarian-Romanian), which took photos of various officers in 1853 and of war scenes near Oltenița and Silistra in 1854, during the Crimean War (From his 200 pictures album only 9 survive today) [1] [2]
  • Ernest Edouard de Caranza (French) which took photos of the French army near Varna in 1854.
  • Roger Fenton, 1855
  • James Robertson 1855

--Alex:D (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War photography. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War photography in the war in Ukraine

[edit]

I think we should include something about people taking pictures with their cell phones in Ukraine now Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of Spam

[edit]

Hi, I today, added reference to a major Australian work on War photography which was then deleted by another editor who suggested I come on the here to raise the issue saying the addition verged on Spam. Of the eight photographers in the book, four have entries in wikipedia. The publication is now held in major collections including the Australian War Memorial. Yes, I included external links to the four photographers who do not have Wp entries and I included a link to the University of Melbourne page of the academic who wrote the forward. The Book, War, was produced to focus a lens on the antipodean contribution to war photography from the 1960s onward. Had the external links been followed, it would have been obvious the role played by this collective in this field. I would welcome some sense in how mention of this tome and inclusion of the members of the degree South collective can be considered Spam Thanks.. DJB of Melb (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying on the talk page, as requested.
I reverted your edit, and my edit summary was: “You will have to go on the talk page and get consensus that this contribution, which arguably verges on spam, is notable enough to take up so much space”. Thus, my complaint was that the contribution takes up disproportionate space considering its actual importance and relevance, so much so as to be arguably verging on spam , or unwarranted promotion, in this case, of a book.
As to that, there are numerous books on war photography. There is no particular reason to single out this one, and nothing to show that it is regarded as special or noteworthy, or even that it has been reviewed in mainstream media, as opposed to blogs.
The heading is “The profession today”. Instead of which, the contribution is, basically: 'There's this 2009 book eight photographers wrote about themselves'. There is nothing to show that, of all the notable war photographers in the world, some of whom gave their lives for their profession, these particular photographers are in any way special or outstanding. Maybe it is your opinion, but no reliable source is cited to make it so.
Your contribution goes on to mention each and every one of them by name, each with a link, even though half do not even have a Wikipedia article. This is disguised by including external links in body of the article, made to look like Wikilinks. The external links are mere blogs. This is emphatically not allowed.
On reflection, my objection should have been couched in stronger terms.Ttocserp 14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, re the links for the photographers not yet on Wikipedia, I used the tools provided , ergo the external link icon at the top of the editing page. There was no intention to disguise the tarhet at all , I am sorry you saw it that way. I am still learning my way around the editing tools and conventions. If you would like to point me in the direction of a netter way of pointing to the contributors, I would be happy to change it that way.
Re the importance of the book, outside of Damien Parer, War photography has had a particular U.S/Eurocentric focus. This book was produced to bring to light some of the contributions by , as they put it, antipodean photographers. I am happy to refine and reduce my contribution and to give it more gravitas and relevance. I just wish they had given it a more unique title to assist in trawling through the citation aggregators, libraries and university stacks.
As to your comment re the loss of life of war chroniclers. Tim Page the primary driver of this work had, with Horst Faas, paid tribute to many of these in theie work "Requim" (Random House, 1997). Each of those contributing to WAR have seen colleagues die. DJB of Melb (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though we almost always vehemently do not want inline external links, one would need to have read something like WP:EL in order to know of that policy. It is understandable that a newcomer would not realise. JB of Melb, the way to treat those without articles is to either not mention them at all and only mention those with articles; or add their name without a link if they are mentioned in the inline source; or if it is perceived that they are notable enough for an article then surround their name in double square brackets so as to create a wikilink, but one that appears in red to indicate that no article yet exists but it is thought that the creation of one would be welcomed. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, based on the external links page, the links I provided could well be legitimised under the Official Links designation. But I think I will rewrite and reduce to a single paragraph, moving it to the prior 20th century section, there is at least one of those without an entry who based on the citation I have found, I will definitely develop an entry. DJB of Melb (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Official links" are for the subject of the article as a whole, e.g. a biography or on a company, and go in an "External links" section at the bottom, and use the "Official website" template. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the mode of going about it, entries must be supported by reliable sources. By definition these do not included Wikipedia itself, or blogs.Ttocserp 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_photography&oldid=1205982904"