Talk:Canadian War Museum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article uses Canadian English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
[edit] Lion-and-Beaver poster
I doubt that the image of the Lion-and-Beaver poster really belongs in this article. It seems to have no connection with the Canadian War Museum, beyond that both relate to Canadian military history. I suppose the museum might hold a copy of the poster, but nothing in particular points to this being so.
However, if the poster's image is included here then the caption used must not make "original research" (OR) interpretations of it. The source of the image says, "British lion and Canadian beaver armed with swords". Thus claiming that the lion represents "the Crown" is pure OR. Personally, I'd be comfortable with the paraphrasing "a beaver representing Canada and a lion representing Britain"; that is, I think that this is, plainly, the very meaning of "British lion and Canadian beaver". I've swapped that paraphrasing for the source's own words, though, because the latter are more concise and so as to head off any arguements about whether the "representing" wording is OR, too.
"Recruitment" is also OR. I don't doubt that part of the the poster's purpose was to encourage volunteering for Canada's military, but it looks as though it was also meant to keep up national resolve, generally. In any case, the source classifies the poster under both "Patriotism" and "Propaganda" (among other groupings), but not under any of "Canada. Canadian Armed Forces", "Military recruiting" or "Recruiting and enlistment".
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's an image. Symbolism within imagery is open to interpretation, unless explicitly explained, as the beaver is in this particular poster. The other symbol here - the lion - however, isn't obviously designated as representing anything. A library in Minneapolis says it represents Britain. They are entitled to their take. However, theirs isn't necessarily the only allowed reading of the image; the lion could represent the Commonwealth, it could represent the Crown, it could represent Churchill (what with the cigar and all), it could represent all of the above. So, either state who says the lion is Britain, or don't give one, singled out analysis at all. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are indulging in OR in the above. The source says what it says. Find a source that says different if you want to dispute it. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
For me it comes down to this: the lion has been used for ages as a personification of Britain, and its use here is pretty obvious. Having said that, I don't think G2bambino's incorrect when he says that the lion could represent the Crown. Frankly, the artist could have intended both, and a more sophisticated view of the poster would suggest a number of additional interpretations. But the Crown allusion is a lot less obvious, and Lonewolf is probably right when he says it should be cited.
The description of the image is sourced on the image description page, as per Wikipedia norms. In my opinion, the description is uncontroversial and obvious, and does not require any unusual attribution (suggesting that it is the opinion of the Minneapolis library) or removal of the word "Britain". However, if anyone disagrees and thinks Royalguard11's original image description goes too far, feel free to get consensus for a change here on the talk page.
My own view is that rather than insisting that the lion doesn't necessarily represent Britain (which, fairly or unfairly, comes across like an attempt at making a point in retaliation to Lonewolf's revision), efforts would be better spent seeing if we can find any source for the Crown interpretation. This poster was mass produced, it is held by a number of archives and libraries, and I believe that it has been reproduced numerous times. Someone has likely written a more detailed interpretation that might contain the necessary information. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
