File talk:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg

Altered images violate the WP:NOR policy and should not be used to illustrate the main Wikipedia namespace. The reason is that they purport to illustrate something that is not true: they capture a moment in time that never occurred. This is a beautiful photo and this was an excellent Photoshop retouching job; but the photo does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Tempshill 06:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors can visit Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Altered_photos for a discussion. Shawnc 08:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just ridiculous. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 16:48

Not if we want to have integrity. Tempshill 22:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture does not pretend to be an original photo, it prominently says that it has been altered, and the original can be seen for comparison. The image does not (quote) propose unpublished ideas or arguments. If what you are saying was true, we would have to delete all diagrams, as they never happened. Oh, by the way, have you seen this image? I don't think that ever happened. Apologies for the sarcasm, but what you are saying is utterly ridiculous. J Milburn 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the alteration is seriously minor and does not constitute OR, in fact I question why it is necessary at all. --Hemisemidemiquaver 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual photojournalists disagree with J Milburn and Hemidemisemiquaver because then the photo is showing something that did not happen. This photo is no longer accurate because of the photoshopping. I don't know if the top of that boxer's head looks like that. It's an invention. This is now a fantasy image, partly a photo and partly a painting. The comparison with diagrams is silly; we all know that humans create diagrams. Photos are different because they depict a moment in time at a particular place. When you alter the image, you are alleging that something different occurred. This is not something that magazine editors seriously dispute anymore; the debate was over a decade ago. Altered photos are OR and not allowed on Wikipedia. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should be able to stretch the rules sometimes, be bold. In this case, I don't see it as OR. It's a crewcut, how different could the head be? In this case I wouldn't support a deletion. I do like the altered photo rule, but not when it's used too zealously.--92.32.246.22 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i cant tell the difference between the two how was the second one photoshopped?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.34.121 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the original, you can't see the top of the right hand boxer's head. J Milburn 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this picture is highly inappropriate for encyclopedic purposes. I can't believe its been chosen to be a featured pic. It looks very unnatural and inconsistent with wikipedia standards. Shame on whoever thinks its acceptable.

22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) This looks like a screenshot from the Fight Night video game.