Talk:Ambivalence/Archive 1

Image in the article

An editor has put an image of a guy in the article claiming that he has a look of ambivalence on his face. For the life of me I cannot see how that facial expression is unambiguously a look of ambivalence (or any other particular emotion/mental state for that matter) and therefore should not be included in the article. The fact that the editor who put the image in the article is the same one who created/uploaded the image in the first place strikes me as suspicious as well. (I've struck through this part as it makes no sense -- of course the uploader added the image to the article, who else would?) I've seen many instances where people just want to get funny pictures of themselves or their friends into Wikipedia regardless of the editorial value of those images. Not saying this is happening here but it's a pattern I've seen before. SQGibbon (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we can put aside prejudices based on your past experiences here as a) I don't think Wikipedia is the place for pop-psychological amateur detective work (the place for that is the very lowest class of television serial dramas!) and b) I don't see anything remotely funny about the image. I see nothing but the barely disguised turmoil of ambivalence (those eyes!), which is why I sought to capture it and preserve its exquisite example for the ages. Obviously if it was undisguised it would be more suitable for illustrating an article about turmoil, but luckily it is barely disguised so it is suitable for illustrating an article about ambivalence. --Validfortravel (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:IMAGE LEAD "The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." and "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I find it difficult to believe that anyone, much less most readers, would immediately, upon seeing this image outside the context of this article, think "Ooh, ambivalence! Perfectly captured in a photograph of some random dude!" No, it's a picture of guy making a face. There is no obvious connection between it and the subject of the article. SQGibbon (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The internet is a visual medium, what with web 2.0 and everything, and a lot of people reading this article won't have the time or inclination to read the whole article - even the lead is wordy and assumes a lot of prior knowledge. The image provides usuful visual shorthand for someone viewing the article who wants to understand the subject quickly. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would really like to weigh in on this debate on one side or the other but find I partly agree with both sides.80.74.4.240 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if the image was unambiguously an example of ambivalence, but it's not, it's just a picture of a dude making a face. If you saw that picture outside the context of this article would you automatically and unequivocally think to yourself "ah, ambivalence!"? If not then the image does not serve the purpose of helping anyone understand the concept of ambivalence. It's just a picture of some guy who, if anything, looks constipated not ambivalent. SQGibbon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand faces. Validfortravel (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps the very subject of the page has fooled you: because the image is so ambivalent, it makes you ambivalent about how ambivalent it is, so you fail to see its ambivalence. I saw this exact same thing happen on the Neutrality page, it took months to resolve. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom your comment was directed. If to me then it is wrong. I am not ambivalent about the image. I am very certain that it is terrible picture for this article. I am sure that it does not unambiguously represent ambivalence. I am positive that it does not help the article in any way. I am certain that it makes the article into a joke. There is no ambivalence on my part. Further, in looking at other articles about emotions such as happy, sad, angry, guilt, jealousy, and so on (i.e., every single article I looked at, which is not to imply that I looked at all of them), not one of them had this kind of goofy idiotic picture in the lede. Along those same lines there is no way this article is going to reach "good article" status (much less "featured article") with this image, which is what we should be striving for with all of our articles. SQGibbon (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care how much Validfortravel wants his face to be on wikipedia, ambivalence is a mental state (or emotion) not a facial expression. A random blank face says nothing about ambivalent, even a picture of Kryten trying to do ambivalence would be better. Please stop this. Lordrichie (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The page for Happy contains multiple images of faces showing the emotion - I don't see why ambivalence should be any different. It's very useful to have a reference image for those of us who find it hard to recognise emotions. 78.141.2.223 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Happiness is an easy emotion to get across with a picture of someone, ambivalence is not. In fact there is absolutely nothing about this image that says ambivalence. It's just a goofy picture. It does not help the article and it does not help anyone understand what ambivalence is. On the contrary, it makes the article into a joke. SQGibbon (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I must say the very lack of clarity in your ability to read the face of the man depicted is itself a powerful argument for it to be retained as an accurate depiction of ambivalence, no? HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. SQGibbon (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You say it doesn't "unambiguously represent ambivalence" - is that not itself a representation of ambivalence? 80.195.177.186 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In reading this response, and several others above that I also failed to understand at all, I think I'm finally starting to see what the problem might be. The word "ambivalent" means holding contradictory feelings at the same time toward an object, i.e., both loving your sibling and hating them at the same time. There's a common connotation of "ambivalence" that means something more like "confusion" or "uncertainty", but however common that definition might be it is not the technical definition and is not the one used in the article. Ambivalent does not mean ambiguous. When I say I am not ambivalent about the relevance of this image to the article I mean that in the way used in the article -- I am positive that it is an idiotic picture, that it does not represent the subject of the article at all, and turns the article into a joke. There are no conflicting emotions there on my part at all. If I were truly ambivalent about using this image then not only would I think it entirely inappropriate for this article but at the same time I would think that it's useful for the article. But I am not ambivalent about this at all -- I am entirely in the "hate it" camp. No ambivalence. And when looking at this image all I see is a mild displeasure plus maybe a little confusion. For this to be a good image of ambivalence we would need to see love and hate at the same time or happiness and sadness together at once but there are no conflicting emotions present in the image. SQGibbon (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this debate, but tbh I'm conflicted as to which is the right one. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, from what I can tell the people keeping the image in the article and/or supporting its inclusion on this talk page either do not understand what "ambivalence" means, are joking, or are meat puppets so I've deleted the image again. SQGibbon (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking of other human beings as "meat puppets" is a rather disturbing outlook. I can only hope you never decide to try "cutting the strings".

Meat puppets, read about 'em. SQGibbon (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Could we have some kind of democratic vote on this - I think there are some people who think the image is spot on, and some that don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.21.29 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We arrive at decisions by working toward a consensus based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Remove Picture doesn't help the article in any way. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The guy's been blocked, but until the image is zapped, he's got his mug all over the internet - whih is probably what his real goal was. Meanwhile, this illustration[1] does a much better job of conveying ambivalence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

nothing to add that hasn't already been said and ignored multiple times, except for WOW - the SOCKS!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to put a picture of SQGibbon on the Unilateralism page.80.74.4.240 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First we should put you on the List of English IPdiots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

even if the other guy started it there is not reason for personal attacks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to "personally" attack an IP-hopping sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)