Talk:Trump raised-fist photographs

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I have blanked-and-redirected this article to its parent article at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump with the following edit summary WP:REDUNDANTFORK - content is the same as in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump; restore when there is something more to add or add it to the parent article then split it off and leave a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; duplicating content like this is not acceptable

—Alalch E. 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize this article existed and created it again in slightly different form with additional sources. So I did a WP:ROUNDROBIN swap of this page and the page I created (which is now at Donald Trump raised fist photograph‎, the former title of this page); I kept the plural title because it's about multiple photographs, not one. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good now, and I've marked it as reviwed. —Alalch E. 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The picture too, really?
This is yet another pointless fork. Whatever I said about the article for Thomas Matthew Crooks applies even more for this.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What about it is pointless? This image has become a defining symbol of a prominent American Presidential nominee and is being covered extremely extensively--both critically by people against Trump (who call it "an opportunity to tout conspiracy theories and stoke political tensions" etc) and his supporters who use it to show their candidate's strength despite being centimeters from death. There is no doubt that the article meets WP:SIGCOV NorthropChicken (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It's a symbol. Csg95 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Like it or not, its symbolism has moved beyond Saturday’s events. PopTartsBowl (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This has clearly and undeniably become something far greater than its immediate context. Yet you continue to deny it despite clear evidence. @LilianaUwU, WP:STICK. BarntToust (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying it. I've come to realize that maybe it is a historic picture, but I can't really snow close/withdraw the AfD since some people have sided with my original point.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @BarntToust You've made 9 edits to the AfD and a whopping 32 to the FfD, which looks like bludgeoning. "Drop the stick" applies both ways, and as the essay you linked notes, applies regardless of whether you're "winning" or "losing". I think your opinions on deletion of both items are clearly expressed and recommend focusing on the content instead. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 03:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm being proactive, which is within my right, as it is Liliana's to continue her concerns until this all comes to a close. It is unwise to suggest that I focus on content; I have been adding source after source on this subject, content and more. "bludgeoning" is as non-definitive to use here as stick is. Perhaps your interest in my history with this discussion is also proactive? I'll hold your behaviour to the same standards I view mine in. I'm going to do more miscellaneous work perhaps unrelated to this subject. We are both citing essays, so I can't say we've actually done anything here, @Dylnuge. Do have a nice one, though! BarntToust (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps your interest in my history with this discussion is also proactive?" is a weird aspersion to cast, seeing as my only contribution at either discussion was to note that the file itself wasn't eligible for speedy deletion. I think you misunderstand me; I'm just trying to let you know how this appears to onlookers. Consider it a friendly heads-up, not anything more severe than that. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 03:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do, I see where you're coming from on here, and I appreciate it. I really do. I thank you for looking out for how things can be perceived. Have a nice one, @Dylnuge! Take care. BarntToust (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Some people are treating this photo like it's the next V-J Day in Times Square or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I'd default to not creating this article, but since it's here I guess we'll see how we feel about it a year from now and reconsider deletion. Fnordware (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Title could use some work?
I'm not sure what would be a good alternative but "Trump raised fist photographs" feels too vague, like it could apply to him raising his fist in any other photograph. CaptainJZH (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I second this. Until/unless the photo(s) receive a proper name, a more descriptive title might be necessary. Perhaps something along the lines of “Post-Trump Assassination Attempt Photos”? PopTartsBowl (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're on the right track there — maybe something like "Post-Assassination Attempt Photographs of Donald Trump"? CaptainJZH (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the article should be narrowed down to the one specific photo from Vucci (the one on the page), rather than an article about all of the photos taken around this time. The page could get a more specific title from there. Twinbros04 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is not about all the photos taken around this time. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps renaming it "Evan Vucci's Photographs of the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump" would work since surely he wasn't the only one who captured the raised fist on camera? CaptainJZH (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, something like “Donald Trump post-assassination-attempt Evan Vucci photographs” would work better, as the significance and instant classicality of the photos hinge specifically on Vucci’s camerawork. HejjoDude (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a title along those lines would be good, but more consise if possible. Mjks28 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2024
Trump raised-fist photographs → Donald Trump fist pump photographs – While his fist is raised in the images, he was actually carrying out a fist pump while being escorted off stage. Also "Trump raised fist" doesn't include the first name of the main subject of the photograph, and just doesn't sound right. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - albeit for different reasons (ambiguous language). "Trump raised fist photographs"? Which fist photographs did he raise? For this reason I don't mind changing it to any other title as long as there's no ambiguity. Yekshemesh (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. This doesn't sound good at all. "Photographs of Trump after assassination attempt" could be a solution perhaps? Furthermore, the issue about 'pump' or 'raise' would no longer arise. And finally, this article is only about this one case, not about other times him raising or pumping fist(s). Stefan Verdorie (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - for this alternative, something that fits with the formality of Wikipedia's usual article titles "Photographs of Donald Trump after attempted assassination" CaptainJZH (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone hyphenated "raised-fist". I no longer object to the article title, save that perhaps it could be named better. Adding a hyphen does wonders for disambiguating! Yekshemesh (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The correct way to handle the grammar problem is to fix the grammar: "Trump raised-fist photographs" Jjamison (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will perform this move as a typographical correction (no prejudice on the outcome of this RM; except if it passes, it should be "fist-pump" for the same reason: it's an adjective). Levivich (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The video shows that we was pumping his fist; this photograph shows a man holding his fist up in defiance. It doesn't matter what was actually happening at the time, iconic photographs like this acquire a life of their own. Hallucegenia (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. A photograph may show a fist, but not what's done with it. It can not show a movement, such as pumping. It could, in theory, insinuate it but this is not even the case here. Stefan Verdorie (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Why hasn't anyone boldly edited the lead sentence before the requested move? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt: I would suggest something along the lines of Donald Trump raised fist photographs instead. —Mjks28 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Donald Trump raised fist photographs. - Sebbog13 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support alt Donald Trump raised-fist photographs per WP:CONSISTENT title with Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign, Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign, Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign, Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture, Donald_Trump%27s_farewell_address and Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates. Per Hallucegenia, I doubt "fist pump." 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support this since it reads more natural to me than both the current title and the originally proposed title. S5A-0043 Talk 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Donald Trump raised-fist photographs for consistency's sake. Estreyeria (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Alt "Donald Trump raised-fist photographs" per WP:TITLECON and WP:CONSISTENT with other photographs of Trump. Oppose the "fist-pump" title since its not inherently clear that the photograph is of a fist-pump. Per WP:FNC, the names of media should be "clear and descriptive." raised-fist is descriptive enough and does not warrant the move.  MetropolitanIC  (💬&#124;📝) 22:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Donald Trump raised fist photographs. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 21:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The photo shows a guy with his fist in the air. No more, no less.  ——Serial Number 54129  09:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons listed by others already and a few more of my own.--FeralOink (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - the context is a fist pump, but the denotation is a dude with his fist in the air. I could see either way? BarntToust (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Vast majority of sources are describing him as raising his fist, not pumping his fist. This requested move borders on absurd. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not accurate. Of the sources cited in the article, Time, the Kennicott WaPo article, AJC, Politico, Australian, Atlantic, Hindustan Times, and India Today say Trump "pumped" his fist. New Yorker, Telegraph, the Barr WaPo article, DW, and Spectator say he "raised" his fist. Levivich (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have a preference between "raised-fist" and "fist-pump". However, if we're going to make the title less WP:CONCISE by adding words (like "Donald"), we should consider that there are lots of photographs of Trump with raised fist or fist pump; this article is about the post-assassination-attempt photos, so maybe "assassination attempt" should be added. Also, there are many photos of Trump with raised/pumped fist after the assassination attempt, so maybe we should specify that this article is about Vucci's photos. "Evan Vucci's photographs of Donald Trump after assassination attempt" is a longer title that more accurately describes the topic, for example; I don't prefer it, I like the shorter current title (disclosure: I chose the current title), but there is some logic to it. All that aside, it's pretty likely one of Vucci's photos will emerge as the "favorite," and it will be given a title, which will become the WP:COMMONNAME, and we can just move this page to that title once that happens. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per @Yekshemesh SimplyLouis27 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current name reads clearly enough, and it shows a raised fist, even if he had also been shaking it. Reywas92Talk 17:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There will likely be a more popular name for these images in the future (perhaps the choice of name used here will influence that). Additionally, I don't see adequate sourcing to support the move on a COMMONNAME basis and the new name would be slightly more ambiguous. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as Donald Trump raised fists photographs. I suppose he did "pump his fist" some, but he mostly just had it raised in my opinion. I do agree we should have his full name as it sounds better. NorthropChicken (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as as Donald Trump raised fists photographs Donald Trump raised-fist photographs . Per above, "raised fist" is more generic and likely search term than "fist pump" for readers, and support using his full name. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Only one fist is raised. Levivich (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was confused by the same. Bruxton (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I have fixed that above to the singular (and hyphenated). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Trump fist" is the far more realistic search term than "raised fist" or even "fist pump". Regardless the name determined - this will of course be the very first result. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment/Support; the article should be moved to "Donald Trump fist-pump photographs". Note the inclusion of the hyphen. Keeper of Albion (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the photo is of a raised fist, even if it's a fist-pump on video TocMan (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Photography, WikiProject Donald Trump, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 07:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - current name better reflects the subject of the photo. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose not clear he was pumping. PuppyMonkey (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is fine for now. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support fist pump per nom Kowal2701 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Symbol neutral vote.svg comment I do not have an opinion and I think both would work fine. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - in the media coverage I see both phrases being used in about equal coverage for this. We could just create a redirect for "Donald Trump fist pump photographs" to this article Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Fist-pump is both too chatty and not a correct representation of what Trump was doing, in the photographs themselves (as static images). I do agree the title should really be Donald Trump raised fist photographs, i.e. include his first name. gbrading  (ταlκ) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think including the fact that this was an assassination attempt is more important than focusing on if this is a raised fist or fist pump. "Photographs of Donald Trump after attempted assassination" is more concise and to the point, and unlikely to cause confusion. - Ïvana (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I like the current title better. Easier to understand. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The current title is fine.  C F A   💬  22:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the verb 'raise' makes the incident more specific, 'fist pump' doesn't quite accurately convey what happened in my opinion Kala7992 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * alt proposal: this (notable) photograph is a singular photo of Trump. All suggested titles are grammatically incorrect as well. The title should begin with "photograph of Trump", like "photograph of Trump raising fist" or something along those lines. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this is not the only photo taken of the incident AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about a single photo, it's about a series of photos taken by Vucci. One of those probably will eventually become "the" photo, but we don't know yet which one. The sources are discussing different photos in the series. This is all explained in the article; I will add something to the lead to emphasize this, since people keep missing it. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is simple and easy to understand. —  Sadko ' (words are wind)  01:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - This is the accurate representation of the image, and contained within the description as well as in any utilization of it will be the factual statement that it was in indeed raised because it was being pumped. To try to frame this image as otherwise is flatly disingenuous. --Picard's Facepalm <b style="color:red">•</b>  Made It So <i style="color:green">Engage!</i> <b style="color:red">•</b> 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose To me, a fist pump is something thats done in celebration (usually up and down at torso height) and not raised. The current title is accurate under WP:NDESC as he's raising it to show defiance and that he's still alive.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 15:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE "Fist pump is slang. Absolutely not worthy of a Wikipedia article title.  CNC33  (. . .talk)  19:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Cropped image possibly unfair to author
(pinging you as one of the contributors to the file and someone who is experienced with files) The caption currently says: One of Vucci's photographs, .... But it is a derivative of his photograph as his composition is not fully represented by the significantly cropped version currently used. His intact image is what he intended to publish and it is that intact image (among other intact images from the same series) that is discussed in our article. Certainly, the original image with its proportions, its centering, and its geometry is better artistically. The image is cropped to reduce the extent of its use, but I think that this could be countereffective with regard to respecting the author's interests, since we are talking about Vucci's work, but are then showing a degraded version of his work. I think that for the purposes of this article, the cropping should be undone; only resizing seems appropriate, but not cropping (only speaking in the context of this article). What are your and other editors' thoughts? —Alalch E. 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already said at the FFD that we should be using the uncropped version - not even User:RodRabelo7's crop, which omits the admittedly-unsightly grey whatever-it-is box off to the left. That's even more the case in this article, which discusses the composition of the photos directly, than it was in the main assassination article, where there was e.g. at least some case to be made to make Trump's injuries more visible. —Cryptic 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now that you did... —Alalch E. 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, We need the full image on here. BarntToust (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cryptic, I say go ahead and re-upload it per qualifications of proper representation. BarntToust (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The grey thing is the teleprompter btw. —Alalch E. 15:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree we should have an uncropped version. I also think we should have both open- and closed-mouth variants. So two versions, at least one of which should be uncropped. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That'll be hard to justify, NFCC-wise. I'm of the opinion we should probably wait at least a couple days until we have a better sense of what our sources consider the canonical version.Another option, especially if the uncropped version is unclear at web resolution - I haven't done a test reduction - is to have a full uncropped version as the main image, with a zoomed-in detail image from a different version. —Cryptic 15:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should do a full image, the uncropped mouth-open version. It makes the most sense. BarntToust (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This terrible crop just destroys the composition of the photo, which is detrimental to the reader's understanding of why it is iconic. There is alternative like CBC news, but please don't crop it as a very small square. SCP  -20  00  02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After reading the linked explanation, strongly agree with SCP-2000. Don't crop as the very small square in current use.--FeralOink (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did my best with the fair-use crop. However, yeah, the full image can and should be used.  Bremps  ...  05:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added wording noting this is a crop in . 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We need the uncropped image. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 01:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that the uncropped image has to be used. The image is the artist's composition; you can't just crop out a large portion of it, including a Secret Service agent shielding Trump's body with his own. The "unsightly grey thing" is the teleprompter. I assume this image is a screenshot of part of the image on Business Insider, and its summary cites Business Insider as the original publication. According to the caption underneath the image in every news media I have seen says ""Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP". If it's OK for use to use screenshots from newspapers, then we could make low-res screenshots of both images in this Guardian article and use those. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the uncropped version per consensus here. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge
No need for standalone Jackwagsy (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We just had this: Articles for deletion/Trump raised fist photographs. It may be reasonable to revisit in a year or so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad Jackwagsy (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Technical information
I'd say, this article should include some technical information, akin to the one for the similarly iconic Zapruder film, or the one on another photo the Trump one here is widely compared to already, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. What camera (and lens) did Vucci use? What shutter speed, ISO, f-stop, focal length? I've heard an interview quoting him on the radio saying he managed to post his photos of the incident within seconds or minutes, without even being able to check what they looked like, before Secret Service rounded up all the reporters inside an electro-magnetically shielded room without mobile reception for half an hour or so, and only once they let him out, he could check his phone to see media worldwide was saying he'd just shot the photo of the decade. That information makes it pretty clear he didn't shoot it on film, but did he shoot it on a DSLR or on a cellphone? --2003:DA:CF11:CF77:9082:7795:7704:9A65 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be good to add to this article, if we had a source that gave that information. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I got *SOME TINY BITS* of technical information so far that we can use them in the article:


 * This TIME MAGAZINE article has the following: Vucci shot a lot of the event with a long (tele) lens, and when the assassination attempt unfolded, with Trump getting back to his feet and pretty much started to actively break out from his bodyguards, Vucci darted to the right end of the stage where he could tell they would lead Trump down the stairs, he got really close and switched to a wide lens (not in the article, but an educated guess from his photos tells me that either his lens has an enormous zoom range, or he had several cameras hanging on him with different lenses to be able to switch so fast), to make his most iconic wide-angle and low-angle shots of the incident. While the entire incident was unfolding, Vucci was using a common technique for modern press photographers today, which is that his camera was hooked up to a hotspot, so his photos were sent to his editor immediately, but Vucci himself wasn't able to look at them.
 * This GUARDIAN article relates the story of how Secret Service immediately rounded up all the press reporters in a tent with zero mobile phone signal, and it took them 45 minutes to let him out, so he could finally check his phone and see his own photos for the first time and find the two fist-pumping shots (closed mouth and open mouth) all over social media worldwide already.
 * This EURONEWS article also quotes Vucci with saying that he deliberately kept the flag in the image "to show this as the defining moment where we are as a country right now". That EURONEWS article also relates a significant observation made by an X user, comparing Vucci to Robert J. Oppenheimer in that he could soon find his work to be out of control and used in ways he may not condone.
 * This HINDUSTAN TIMES article includes a still from a cellphone video of Vucci taking the photos. I'm afraid the resolution is not good enough to tell his camera model, but it just about looks like he's using a DSLR.
 * Also of note: The original AP entry to Vucci's most iconic photo from the series documents that he took the photo at exactly 8:16pm local time.


 * All of those articles also mention that not only has Vucci covered Trump's career for years, he's also used to taking photos in crisis areas under heavy fire, as he's also documented active war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, and the articles emphasize how that experience prepared him for this incident, so that he was able to "just do his job", as he calls it in those articles. --2003:DA:CF01:8661:6CFD:7EC4:D5EE:E694 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Vucci .. only?
Doug Mills of the New York Times took this photograph of Trump raising his fist. The article seems to only discuss Vucci. It's kind of strange to focus on a single photographer and photograph this early on, when other photographers and photographs exist. Sort of picking winners.

Maybe an RM and additional articles:


 * Trump raised-fist photographs (Vucci)
 * Trump raised-fist photographs (Mills)
 * Trump bullet-trail photograph (Mills)

Or Combine:
 * Photography of attempted assassination of Donald Trump

-- Green  C  05:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Last option is the most sensible and the title is written in an encyclopedic style.  Bremps  ...  19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources for the notability of the other photos? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The New York Times attributes "The still images .. by Doug Mills of The New York Times, and by photographers from The Associated Press and Reuters". If the AP photo is the anointed photo because of the flag's patriotic motif we can discuss that in the article, but AP is only one of at least 3 photo series from the event, as noted by a reliable source. -- Green  C  02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is titled in a way that should include other photographs of Trump with a raised fist, so I think it is appropriate to discuss them on this article (if someone wants to go ahead and do that). I agree that the creation of photographer-specific articles would be appropriate for specific images.  MetropolitanIC  (💬&#124;📝) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the Vucci raised-fist photographs are the only notable raised-fist photographs. Mills' bullet-trail photograph may also be notable, but I see no reason why an article about that photo should be merged with an article about Vucci's photos. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There are several photographs out of the series Vucci took at the Butler rally that have been called "the" iconic photograph by different newspapers. Also, the fist-pump has been a regular show of belligerence at his campaign rallies and events, long before his fellow-Republican shot at him. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regular show 💀 CheeseyHead (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Cover art
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You Missed

Great job
This is turning out to be a nice article, but the title is terrible. Otherwise, nice work. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reception of the Photograph
The "Reception" section of the article seems a bit cluttered. WP:TRIV says we should "avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information," but that seems to be what's happening to me. I'm reading down the list and seeing 10+ entries that mention that "so and so person" said that the image would "go down in history." Many of these entries don't even seem to be WP:RELEVANT, especially the stances of "India Today" and the "Hindustan Times". I would recommend we create a collapsed paragraph indicating that "multiple people have expressed that the photograph has significant historic value," or something along those lines, or restrict the reception paragraph to containing strictly WP:RELEVANT individuals.

Thoughts?  MetropolitanIC  (💬&#124;📝) 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * India Today and Hindustan Times are not relevant, why again? —Alalch E. 23:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned India Today and Hindustand Times as examples from the list. I'm not saying we should remove only them specifically.
 * There are likely thousands of different opinions that people have made about this photograph both on social media and on reputable news sources, but just because the source talks about the article's subject doesn't make it necessary to include it (see WP:ONUS). If we were to include every single reaction to the photograph, we wouldn't be able to scroll to the bottom of the article.
 * With that in mind, I just don't see the reason to include the stance of many of the entries in "Receptions" in the first place. Why include India Today over the New York Times and why Timothy Garton Ash over some other historian? They don't seem to be specifically WP:NOTABLE over other newspapers or historians.
 * The point is, the section currently seems to be a conglomeration of miscellaneous information that could be collapsed into one or two paragraphs over how the "majority of people" responded to the image. (maybe with India Today, Hindustan Times, or some of the other people listed cited as a source.)  MetropolitanIC  (💬&#124;📝) 00:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why we don't include opinions from social media, just reputable news sources. There aren't thousands of reviews of the photograph published in WP:RS, probably more like a dozen or two.
 * We don't include India Today over NYT, we include both. We include Ash because his opinion was reported by an RS. If another historian's opinion were reported by an RS, we should include that, too.
 * Analysis of the photograph is not "miscellaneous information." What we absolutely can't do is take a handful of opinions and call it how the "majority of people" responded to the image; we'd need an RS for that, and I doubt any RS will make claims about how a majority of people responded to an artwork.
 * Nevertheless, there probably is or will be some RS published that reviews the reviews, which we could cite for broader statements instead of relying on individual reviews. Maybe we'll eventually have enough bona fide art criticism to supplant hot takes from daily newspapers. And what's there now can probably be consolidated or otherwise shortened. But reviews aren't trivia or lists of miscellaneous information. This is an article about an artwork: background, composition, and reception, are the three major parts of such an article (we are missing production/materials because we don't have that info yet). Levivich (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I organized the content from the reception section into proper subsections . 174.92.25.207 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this organization and think there are way too many subsections. Levivich (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to boldly merge some sections or even completely redo the organization. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Title in infobox
@Another Believer (and everyone): do you think setting the infobox |title= inappropriately suggests to the reader that this is the title of the photograph(s)? Levivich (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly if others prefer to avoid a title, but I don't think I've ever seen an infobox with the title field purposely avoided altogether. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)