Talk:And babies

Anti-war propaganda

Regarding this edit, Mesoderm believes "Propaganda" is pejorative in modern usage and thus POV and should be removed (which was done).

I'm not sure what "modern usage" means but the term has multiple senses, the meaning is defined rather by its context of use. Within the context of this article, it's a perfectly neutral description of what it is (for the definition see propaganda). Notice how many anti-war posters are used in the propaganda article. Are we going to say that any usage of "propaganda" on Wikipedia is pejorative and POV? It's a question of the context of its use. If one is being disparaging or attacking or pejorative, then yes the term propaganda would be POV. If your simply describing it in an academic type encyclopedia article, then the term is neutral in its traditional sense, and very useful for understanding what it is. Indeed the term propaganda is often used by scholars in "modern usage" without being pejorative.

Lets take a look. In the book Propaganda and mass persuasion: a historical encyclopedia, 1500 to the present (2003), the poster And babies is described as "propaganda art". In the book Propaganda Prints: A History of Art in the Service of Social and Political Change, the poster And babies is listed as an example. In the book Why America fights: patriotism and war propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq (2009) is listed as an example. I'm sure there are more, but And babies is one of the biggest iconic examples of anti-war propaganda from the Vietnam era. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I could find no place where I could post my question, and so I place it here: I would like to ask a question re: "And Babies?And Babies" photo of the MyLai Massacre. Why has NO-ONE (that I've seen) mention that one girl clearly was RAPED (see her holding her injured genitals, even in death). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique Sneak (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It enters the mind of madness to speculate how those bodies came into those positions. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Text font

From Kill for Peace pg. 124-125:

"Notably, while the origin of the text used in And Babies was the Wallace–Meadlo interview, the lettering itself was sourced from the New York Times, which printed the interview the following day."

-- GreenC 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522:, to answer your post on my talk page[1] here, the source is above. I looked at the actual text on Internet Archive and used the "+" button to blow it up to extreme size and it sure does look like the same lettering. It would also fit the poster's style to "steal" the work of someone else (the picture, the quote) to in effect co-opt the system and use it against itself, the style of the artwork. Also the poster is 2 feet tall meaning each letter was 6 inches tall, so any defect in the original newspaper print or the enlargement process would be enhanced. -- GreenC 03:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, it looks like that is what they did. In that case, maybe it would be better to go back to "lettering" instead of "font". I think you had that in an earlier revision. -- Margin1522 (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And children?

the last sentence of this article, ' The British punk band Discharge wrote the song "Q: And Children? A: And Children" on the album Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing (1982).' seems irrelevant and not a good way to close the article, since the article addresses the poster known as "for babies," and not the quote from the interview or any other source. Fix?Actio (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

unrelated comment: I am not sure what to make of the reliance on the relatively obscure writer M. Paul Holsinger. Actio (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Caption

Current text: "The derision "baby killers" was often used against U.S. soldiers largely as a result of the My Lai Massacre[1] and anti-war 'propaganda art'[2] like the And babies poster."

My concerns:

1. POV: An image illustrating the main subject of an article should straightforwardly identify it. Opinions should be left to the main article. This feels like editorializing, and features several questionable elements…
2. the derision is an awkward and inaccurate description of this phrase 'baby killer.' It seems to be an accusation, rather than an act of mockery.
3. was often used The allegedly common scene of mockery and confrontation of returning Vietnam Veterans is contested by The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke. Lembcke finds survey data showing that 75% of returning veterans opposed the war as of 1975, that most reported positive experiences on their return, etc. The book also documents numerous fictional accounts that string together "baby killers" shouts and spitting, which Lembcke finds to lack factual foundation. He describes it as an enduring myth about the end of the war.
4. largely as a result Myra MacPherson's interview question (that's all it is) is simply too little to make this connection. The second source does not address "baby killers" at all.

Proposed text: The Art Workers Coalition poster And Babies, which connected the My Lai massacre with anti-war sentiment, was "easily the most successful poster" opposing the Vietnam War. [citation to Holsinger, M. Paul (1999). War and American Popular Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 363. ISBN 978-0-313-29908-7. --Carwil (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)