Comments:Photo source for Barack Obama presidential campaign "HOPE" poster discovered

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

National symbol

I really must have been out-of-touch. I consider myself to be politically aware, though not active. I have never heard of "the iconic Barack Obama "HOPE" poster, that became a national symbol during his 2008 presidential campaign". A "national symbol"? Really? Am I the only one who didn't see this? --SVTCobra 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "national symbol" (that got added by someone else in the editing process), but it definitely became a widely-recognized icon of the Obama campaign and it's themes. To get a feel for how widely it spread, just look at how widely it's been imitated. There's a web application for giving the "Obamicon" treatment to any image.--ragesoss (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Print Version

I just wanted to point out that the original photo is this version: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/artsandliving/style/features/2008/obama-poster-051808/graphic.html?sid=ST2008051602005 . This version is slightly different than the Hope version. It says Progress instead of Hope and has Fairey's signature OBEY star. --71.72.186.199 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What?

Why is this a huge deal? Are there claims of plagiarism or something I'm missing? I could care less about this. This isn't notable. Great picture, but not news.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.98.34.25 (talk • contribs)

You did read the article after all by the sounds of it, and took time to make a comment, so it had to have interested you enough. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that such an effort was put into identification by so many people is newsworthy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

sweet

Nice many tasty information about the photo . --Kai Burghardt (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not news.

This is not news, but rather inane babbling with no true importance in general. Wikinews should push itself to stay above the level of such unimportant fluff to avoid risking a steady decline into the vacuous condition of official media outlets. —68.108.144.241 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Brent

Wikinews is written by anyone and everyone. So our stories are whatever people happen to feel like writing. If you feel that there aren't enough important stories, then there is any easy way to fix that: write them;). More users are always appreciated. Gopher65_talk 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "you can keep the "change.""

you can keep the "change." —71.239.45.159 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)