Talk:Ty Ziegel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] Notability
Is this guy really notable enough to warrant an article? 81.151.124.185 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Elmo
Definitely. It is a beautiful story and those pictures will amongst for instance some old Vietnam pictures be seen for decades, they tell a story about war and how it affects people..
I don't think this article is worth of beign here, this is a temple of knowledge, not sentimentalism. (Pakokonka 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
This series of pictures was a winner in the 2007 World Press Photo, so I don't see why this should be downplayed as sentimentalism, these images clearly had a huge impact, I would compare them to the series of the burned naked girl during the Vietnam War. --82.146.104.41 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What's worth noting is that Ziegel and his wife are no longer separated and are now divorced. What a beautiful story, right?
http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2007/12/scars-of-war.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.20.215 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Daily Raider Vandalism
On behalf of the Daily Raider, I would like to point out that whoever has included the links to our site, albeit humourous, did so without our approval. Sure we like the publicity and all, but fuck it man, we would prefer it to be done on an entry that people actually pay attention to. DizzofDailyRaider 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up, although I don't find the humor in it. I don't want to go through the trouble of reverting, protecting and then blocking the users. the_undertow talk 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I was referring to the humour inherent in the article itself. As for you having to revert it constantly, there's really no point, the other person seems to be dead set on having that link up, so they'll probably just keep registering new accounts and shit until you eventually give up or the entire page gets deleted. On that point, I must note that I think this page is fucking pointless and would be better off nonexistent, but there are better ways to get it that way. 158.135.255.199 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fuck, that was me who said all of that, I logged out before philosophy and forgot to log back in. DizzofDailyRaider 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I don't want to deal with the hassle. I protected the page from new users, so that issue is dead. Second, the article is sourced by 2 or more independent, reliable sources, so there are no grounds for deletion. Maybe a little more philosophy will do you good. You will realize that much like your website, there is no inherent humor to be found in this article. the_undertow talk 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- More philosophy classes aren't going to get me to lose my sense of humour nor will it make me suddenly love humanity and the American military. Honestly, I think the fuckup deserved it for volunteering for another tour of duty. That aside, what benefit does this wikipedia entry have beyond talking about some picture that just happened to win a prestigious prize? Absolutely nothing, it's pretty much just begging to be vandalized. DizzofDailyRaider 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I don't want to deal with the hassle. I protected the page from new users, so that issue is dead. Second, the article is sourced by 2 or more independent, reliable sources, so there are no grounds for deletion. Maybe a little more philosophy will do you good. You will realize that much like your website, there is no inherent humor to be found in this article. the_undertow talk 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fuck, that was me who said all of that, I logged out before philosophy and forgot to log back in. DizzofDailyRaider 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I was referring to the humour inherent in the article itself. As for you having to revert it constantly, there's really no point, the other person seems to be dead set on having that link up, so they'll probably just keep registering new accounts and shit until you eventually give up or the entire page gets deleted. On that point, I must note that I think this page is fucking pointless and would be better off nonexistent, but there are better ways to get it that way. 158.135.255.199 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Well, I don't agree that he deserved it, but I will respect your views on the US military and humanity in general. I was once a philosophy major, and it having a sense of humor was the only way I could get through it. Although it could be argued that he is just another casualty, he is the subject of a series of prize-winning photographs. Having being that subject, like Sharbat Gula, his notability is inherited from such an award. I don't think any article deserves to be vandalize, but many do not deserve inclusion. If you want to become involved in the process, you could nominate the article for deletion and find out what others think about its merit. the_undertow talk 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
why is it not mentioned that they are now divorced? too depressing or too obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.150.135 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
