This image is currently used by
Young Americans for Freedom. The subject depicted there is the former chairman of the organization. I have 2 main issues with this image:
I think the FU rationale is weak. Bristow is alive, and is not even mentionned in the article. A free image showing YAF members in the same kind of situation could convey the same significance
This image is used to "Illustrate the openly violent ideology of Mr. Bristow and his YAF", this contrasts highly with the tone of the article, much more neutral. This image not NPOV friendly at all. --
lucasbfrtalk 10:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - doesn't meaningfully assist the reader to understand the article.
PhilKnight (
talk) 10:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment maybe I need to explain the background here. Bristow and his MSU-YAF achieved some success in the "normal" conservative world, being profiled as victims of political correctness by Bill O'Reilly and others. He portrayed himself as just a normal middle-American standing up for traditional values and so forth. However, his internet postings to Facebook and even
stormfront.org belie this - and those postings have been covered by the Michigan State News, Michigan Messenger, MediaMouse, YAF Watch, etc. What I'm saying is that his Internet postings are in and of themselves a subject of serious critical commentary. They're not just an illustration I've chosen because I want to get a point across.
As for the image not being NPOV because it contrasts with the tone of the article, this is begging the question. The article may well be too kind to MSU-YAF (note that MSU-YAF is not the same as the historical YAF, who were not extremists.) <
eleland/
talkedits> 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Understand that I have no sympathy for Bristow and this group, but the picture is IMHO a problem in that it is not the subject commentary in the article (we are asking the reader to add 1 and 1, with
no reliable sources covering it). Even if it was commented on, we should then link to a reliable source discussing it, not host a copyrighted image. We can't really show and tell our readers "all this is bullshit, see for yourself". I hope you see my reasoning. --
lucasbfrtalk 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Any implication that this image constitutes proof of an "openly violent ideology" is an unsupportable and BLP-violating
original synthesis unless you have sources that use this specific image to support that assertion. Otherwise, it's a photo of some kid with a gun with some big explosives going off in the background. Yee-haw, let's go blow some stuff up.
FCYTravis (
talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - "No free equivalent known; unique image exposing Mr. Bristow's violent fantasies of
RaHoWa." That's pretty funny and does not suggest any
NPOV or
OR issues.... -
Seidenstud (
talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is currently used by
Young Americans for Freedom. The subject depicted there is the former chairman of the organization. I have 2 main issues with this image:
I think the FU rationale is weak. Bristow is alive, and is not even mentionned in the article. A free image showing YAF members in the same kind of situation could convey the same significance
This image is used to "Illustrate the openly violent ideology of Mr. Bristow and his YAF", this contrasts highly with the tone of the article, much more neutral. This image not NPOV friendly at all. --
lucasbfrtalk 10:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - doesn't meaningfully assist the reader to understand the article.
PhilKnight (
talk) 10:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment maybe I need to explain the background here. Bristow and his MSU-YAF achieved some success in the "normal" conservative world, being profiled as victims of political correctness by Bill O'Reilly and others. He portrayed himself as just a normal middle-American standing up for traditional values and so forth. However, his internet postings to Facebook and even
stormfront.org belie this - and those postings have been covered by the Michigan State News, Michigan Messenger, MediaMouse, YAF Watch, etc. What I'm saying is that his Internet postings are in and of themselves a subject of serious critical commentary. They're not just an illustration I've chosen because I want to get a point across.
As for the image not being NPOV because it contrasts with the tone of the article, this is begging the question. The article may well be too kind to MSU-YAF (note that MSU-YAF is not the same as the historical YAF, who were not extremists.) <
eleland/
talkedits> 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Understand that I have no sympathy for Bristow and this group, but the picture is IMHO a problem in that it is not the subject commentary in the article (we are asking the reader to add 1 and 1, with
no reliable sources covering it). Even if it was commented on, we should then link to a reliable source discussing it, not host a copyrighted image. We can't really show and tell our readers "all this is bullshit, see for yourself". I hope you see my reasoning. --
lucasbfrtalk 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Any implication that this image constitutes proof of an "openly violent ideology" is an unsupportable and BLP-violating
original synthesis unless you have sources that use this specific image to support that assertion. Otherwise, it's a photo of some kid with a gun with some big explosives going off in the background. Yee-haw, let's go blow some stuff up.
FCYTravis (
talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - "No free equivalent known; unique image exposing Mr. Bristow's violent fantasies of
RaHoWa." That's pretty funny and does not suggest any
NPOV or
OR issues.... -
Seidenstud (
talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)reply