Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Vincenti

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 12:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Carl Vincenti

(
)
Young Maasai man
Young Maasai man
Created by Munfarid1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 29 past nominations.

Munfarid1 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC).

Interesting life and work, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I prefer the original, as closely connected to the image which is licensed and gives a good idea of what he did. I suggest to add a year, to place it in time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, @Gerda Arendt:, I added the year 1900 to the first hook, as you suggested. Munfarid1 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5Just added the source for the selected hook below. Hopefully this nom is now RTG.Munfarid1 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Munfarid1: Forgot my signature. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This also needs to be noted: the originally promoted hook was rejected after promotion per another WT:DYK discussion. It is now supposed to run with the following hook:
  • ... that Carl Vincenti's posing of indigenous people in studio portraits (example pictured) contributed to the stereotyping of Africa and Africans?
  • Source: A study of racial stereotyping with reference to the territory of the modern state of Rwanda ... discussed a picture postcard published by Vincenti as an example. [1]
Per the consensus at the WT:DYK discussion, the old options have been struck and this will be the hook that will run once the issues are resolved. For what it's worth, I saw no issues with the original hook, but the consensus was to move away from it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@Munfarid1: Have the issues been resolved? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:- Yes, I added a clear source to the "issue" that another user referred to more than a week ago, asking them, if this has resolved this issue. Since they have not replied, I think this nomination is ready to go. - Thanks for your assistance in promoting this DYK, that already had been cleared by more than one reviewer before. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru and RoySmith: Pinging for input if the issues have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this for somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: as the original reviewer, can you check to see if the concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
What can I say? I liked the original hook better, and didn't quite understand the concerns. If not the original, I'd prefer something clarifying where he worked as what, instead of leaving only something that feels negative to me. The image is stronger than all these hook words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Munfarid1: I can't remember if this was discussed in the WT:DYK discussion: does reference 31 in the article explicitly say that Vincenti's work contributed to the stereotyping, or was it a general statement that used Vincenti as an example? The article's current wording seems to suggest the latter and not the former, meaning that ALT as currently written may be inaccurate and thus may need a reword, unless the source is more explicit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for having another close look at ALT and the source. You are absolutely right about the second meaning, but I don't think that we can keep the picture by rephrasing ALT. According to @Gerda Arendt:'s original review , I therefore suggest this
ALT0a: ... that around 1900, Carl Vincenti took a studio portrait of a young Maasai man (pictured)? - Hope this will unclog the wait. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
That's factual, fine by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid that ALT0 was explicitly rejected in the WT:DYK discussion, so as much as Gerda likes that particular hook, it can't be used. @Munfarid1: Do you have another wording that could be used? If the issue is the picture, then the hook can run without it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
(late to this: I marked the ALT as not ALT0, but ALT0a. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am afraid there may be a misunderstanding on your part: I have suggested another, completely different wording earlier on today, only called it ALT0 by mistake; so we better call it ALT3 ... that around 1900, Carl Vincenti took a studio portrait of a young Maasai man (pictured)? -. This is what Gerda Arendt referred to.-- Munfarid1 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I see. However, it still largely deals with ALT0's hook fact, and that particular angle was rejected at the WT:DYK discussion, so that angle may have to be abandoned. For what it is worth, I was actually okay with ALT0 (and would be fine with ALT3), but the issue was that consensus was against that particular angle, so as much as I disagree with it too we have to abide by it, unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, the original ALT0 was rejected by a user, who was not the reviewer and said the fact that he looked straight at the camera was not interesting. - This is why I have suggested ALT3 with a different wording. If you think it can't be used, I suggest the following alternatives, hoping that you will find one that is ok. In ALT4, I am taking into account @Gerda Arendt:'s statement: "If not the original, I'd prefer something clarifying where he worked."

(This is almost identical to ALT1, which was not rejected, but not preferred earlier on.)

  • ALT5: ... that around 1900, Carl Vincenti took a studio portrait of a young African woman (pictured)? *:: File:Vincenti - African woman.jpg

Source: https://recherche.smb.museum/detail/1848255/miau-m%C3%A4dchen-ot?language=de&question=Carl+Vincenti&limit=15&sort=relevance&controls=none&objIdx=2

  • ALT6: ... that around 1900, Carl Vincenti lent a folding camera (pictured) to a visiting colonial officer? File:C.P.Goerz.jpg
    Source: https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/dsdk/content/pageview/1855405
  • ALT7: ... that around 1900, photographer Carl Vincenti took his apprentice Walther Dobbertin to court?
    Source: Kurmann, Eliane (2023-01-20). Fotogeschichten und Geschichtsbilder: Aneignung und Umdeutung historischer Fotografien in Tansania (in German). Campus Verlag. p. 47. ISBN 978-3-593-45187-9. - Thanks again for your patient assistance. ;)Munfarid1 (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for trying, but none of the other pics is as great in stamp size. The rejected angle was the look into the camera, which is not part of ALT0a (ALT3). I feel not wanted here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I fully agree, Gerda, and still hope that @Narutolovehinata5: might agree on the difference of the rejected ALT0 and our favourite ALT0a, as you explained. It is unfortunate that a user who did not review the article and only said, he doesn't think that ALT0 was interesting has caused us so much work. - Let us hope, this will finally see the green light. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I do wish I could approve the hook, but that would be going against the consensus established at WT:DYK. Approving the rejected angle would require that consensus being vacated, which means the editors objecting to it withdrawing their concerns. For what it's worth, I do think that a rewording of the stereotyping hook might still be a plausible option, or at least one that would best meet consensus. That is, if the source actually agrees with it. If it doesn't, I'm not sure.
The other hooks have a similar issue to the one raised for the original angle: their interest is dependent on getting the picture slot, and that's not exactly ideal. I don't really see ALT7 as that ideal as I don't know if Dobbertin is a significant figure, but it might be the best option here or at least the safest one since it is not reliant on having a picture, and it does raise curiosity for a non-specialist reader. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi again, and thanks for your explanations. However, I don't understand why a hook for a photographer should not "be dependent on getting the picture slot". - Anyway, I prefer closing this nomination, and yes, Dobbertin is a significant figure. - The two were the only known professional photographers in German East Africa. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
It's a general sentiment and has nothing to do with Vincenti being a photographer. The idea is that if a hook is reliant on having a picture rather than being able to stand on its own, then that's usually not ideal. There are exceptions to this, of course, and I actually think this could have been one of those exceptions, but the idea is that a hook should be interesting or at least work regardless if it's in the picture slot or not. Having said that, would you be okay with ALT7 if it meant the article running? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
You can approve that. Why should I when the image - for a photographer! - says so much more about what was important for the subject, and says it more directly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, ALT7 is okay for me, too. Munfarid1 (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. One last thing: per recently implemented DYK rules, it's encouraged for reviewers to ask for a copy or excerpt of offline/non-English sources to verify hooks (this replaced the old "assume good faith" approval). Will you be able to provide a brief excerpt of reference 3 and the part that talks about the suing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, the original reviewer is Gerda Arendt, who reads German, and just approved ALT7. But here is the excerpt from p. 47, footnote 133 of ref 3: "Vincenti and Dobbertin fell apart after Dobbertin had stolen photographic material from his employer, as is reflected in the following documents: Tanzania National Archives G21/151, records of the Imperial District court, Dar es Salaam, relating to the case against Dobbertin of having stolen material 1907/08. Munfarid1 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I didn't approve ALT7. Someone else can do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, does the text say that it was Vincenti who brought him to court? The excerpt you gave doesn't seem to directly say it, but I'm willing to assume good faith here if necessary for the nomination to be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, the source refers to the court records as reason for their falling apart. But doesn't it seem logical that when a court sentenced Dobbertin for having stolen equipment from Vinceni this must have been based on Vincenti's having him taken to court? - There is one more source I have just added as ref 4: In this 1907 court document titled in translation "Penal procedure against photographer Walther Dobbertin in Daressalam" Dobbertin's first sentence for this robbery at Vincenti's studio from three days in prison plus the court's charges was reduced to a fine of 100 Marks. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Some photographer - without mentioning merits at all - takes an apprentice to court. Is that interesting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I share your frustration, Gerda Arendt. After having had another close look at the article, I don't see how we can formulate an interesting hook w/out referring to his photography. After all, that's what makes him notable. If @Narutolovehinata5:, who also has spent much time on this, cannot accept one of the hooks, even w/out a picture, I am ready to withdraw this nomination. :( Munfarid1 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
But his photography is interesting and unusual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, here are some more attempts:

Of course, I can give sources, if one of these is accepted. Munfarid1 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of this moving forward, do you have a quote for reference 32 that talks about Vincenti and stereotyping? Depending on what the source says, maybe we can go with the original version of the stereotyping hook after all. I did say that I wasn't rejecting that angle, just that the wording had to be modified. ALT9 is less interesting, but it's a safe option and we can go with that if the stereotyping angle doesn't work out (it might need a reword since the article currently specifies one person using the photos for plant and agricultural studies rather than in general). Anyway, if you really still want to run the original hook or a variant thereof, I was not the one who objected to it but rather Amakuru and RoySmith, so discuss it with them and see if they can lift their objections. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I haven't looked at this in a while, but reviewing the nom, I now remember that this went off into aspects that were outside my realm of expertise, so I'll leave this for others to figure out. RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru I am appealing to you to consider lifting your objections against ALT1 or, alternatively, to endorse ALT3. The reason is that - after many attempts - we can't find a similarly interesting hook. User:Narutolovehinata5 wrote above: "I was actually okay with ALT0 (and would be fine with ALT3), but the issue was that consensus was against that particular angle, so as much as I disagree with it too we have to abide by it, unfortunately." - unless you lift your objection. - I don't see how we can formulate an interesting hook w/out referring to his photography. And taking a studio portrait of an African in a colonial setting and publishing it as a postcard for sale, is IMHO not a mundane fact. After all, that's what makes Vincenti notable. If we can't lift your objection, this long process of nominating will have to be abandoned. - For easier reference, here are the two hooks. Gerda Arendt, who reviewed the nom and I would like to use one of these alternatives, with the picture to complement the text:
*ALT0 ... that around 1900, a young Maasai man (pictured) looked straight at Carl Vincenti's camera?
* Source: ... a young man of the Maasai ethnic group with typical hairstyle looked straight at the camera.
*ALT3 ... that around 1900, Carl Vincenti took a studio portrait of a young Maasai man (pictured)?
* Source: [3]
Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@Munfarid1: Are you not open to the article running on DYK without a picture? If it's necessary for the nomination to move forward and be approved, we can always go with a hook like ALT9 which is not reliant on a picture but also does not raised the concerns that other editors raised. I'm also a bit confused about why you seem to be rejecting going with some variant of the stereotyping hook when all that is necessary is a reword and can still run with the picture. Something like:
ALT11 ... that commercial portraits such as those by Carl Vincenti (example pictured) contributed to the stereotyping of Africa and Africans?
ALT12 ... that commercial portraits such as those by Carl Vincenti (example pictured) contributed to the racist discrimination of Africans?
That one at least seems to reflect the article and maybe the sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(still watching): I see all the stereotype hooks as needlessly narrow and negative about a person who had impact by his photography. I don't see why neutrally showing a photo would be a bad idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for ALT11. I have just added ALT12, which fits the source better, and the source with a translation for this hook above. I think this is the best way to go ahead. To make things easier, I can leave the choice of the picture to you and hope Gerda Arendt can also live with this solution. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm okay with ALT12 as a compromise option, plus I think it can run with the image. Unfortunately I cannot approve it myself as I introduced a new hook fact ("commercial portraits"). Gerda, could you approve ALT12 in the interest of this moving forward? Amakuru Is ALT12 good? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Fixing malformed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
As I said above, I'll leave this for others to figure out RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
yes to ALT12, with image please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Gerda Arendt: I can't find ALT12 in the article nor the cited source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I think this is the relevant part in the article: Commercial photo studios such as Vincenti's produced appealing and sales-promoting photographs by carefully staging the people photographed in certain poses and often with "typical" clothing and jewellery. Their manipulated portraits thus contributed to the stereotyping of Africa and Africans. It may need some modifications to reflect the source given above, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this is the relevant part, and I have just modified the text about the study on racist stereotyping to correspond to ALT12 and reused ref. 38 for the exact translated quote. I hope this is clear enough for the hook to be promoted. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm just confused about that part though. The article mentions "Even though the actual photographer of this photograph is unknown"; is it referring to a specific picture by Vincenti? It seems to conflict with the rest of the paragraph which says that Vincenti's work contributed to stereotyping and racism, unless the paragraph was speaking in general about his work and not talking about that specific picture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The caption of the picture and the preceding text clearly name Vincenti as both publisher and photographer. (..."the study assumes that Vincenti as publisher was interested in selling stereotypical images ...) So does the source to the picture in the university's online archive. To avoid confusion, I have deleted the part about the "unknown" photographer, which actually does not correspond to the image caption. Munfarid1 (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Straight and obvious copyright violation of the source material. The paragraph sourced to this website also needs work; its author does not specifically identify Vincenti's work as "racist, discriminatory and violat[ing] the personality of the depicted" but our article does. In general, it seems to me that the "Photographs as visual documents" section is not accurately summarising the cited sources but instead trying to duplicate them, leading to the above problems. I'd recommend a less heavy-handed approach.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, AirshipJungleman29 could you indicate, where exactly you found copyright violation of the source material? Earwig says: Violation unlikely 7.4%. - And what do you make of the o first sentence of the source article: "The photographs shown below are almost continuously racist, discriminatory and violate the personality of the depicted." Isn't this what ALT12 refers to, but in paraphrase? Munfarid1 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Munfarid1, Earwig is not some see-all-deity for copyright; see WP:NOTEARWIG for a list of its numerous flaws. In this case, we can compare:
Article Cited source (p. 18)
Compared to the photographs taken by colonial officers and scientists, less authentic images of Africa and its peoples were often created by commercial photographers who catered to the rapidly expanding European market for photographs and postcards from Africa.
Commercial photo studios such as Vincenti's produced appealing and sales-promoting photographs by carefully staging the people photographed in certain poses and often with "typical" clothing and jewellery.
Their manipulated portraits thus contributed to the stereotyping of Africa and Africans. 		"In comparison with photographs taken by colonial officials, scientists, and amateurs, commercial photographers catering for a European market for travel photography that had greatly expanded by the 1880s, created less authentic images of Africa and its peoples.
Large photographic companies...produced appealing, saleable photographs by carefully staging subjects to adopt certain poses and wear "typical" clothes and ornaments.
Their manipulated representations contributed further to a stereotype of Africa and Africans."
We see several phrases entirely plagiarised from the cited source. We also see that the link between the source and the article is forced—there is no mention of Vincenti in the source, so the entire thing falls under WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
These are two different issues: First, you seem to be looking at the wrong source. The one talking about racist stereotypes in Vincenti's image is ref. 32, as has been mentioned several times above. Second, I have just paraphrased the close wording you correctly pointed out. Thanks for telling me, if this has been remedied now: "Commercial studios selling portraits and postcards for the growing demand by Europeans produced less realistic portrayals of Africa and Africans than photographs by colonial authorities, scholars and private individuals. Photography studios took carefully staged photographs of people in traditional clothing and ornaments to create commercially succesful images. These artificial depictions reinforced existing stereotypes about Africa and Africans." Munfarid1 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I was looking at exactly the right source for my reply to this comment. Please note WP:THREAD for guidance on how to read conversations. And that is so far away from a remedy it is unbelievable; I am now suspicious you don't understand what close paraphrasing is at all and that the article might be riddled with it. I'll do a deeper check later when I have time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Let me try to make my reading of this discussion clearer: This comment you refer to relates to a quote Narutolovehinata5 entered on 29 May in green letters, not me. The relevant quote for ALT12 is this: "A study of racial stereotyping with reference to the territory of the modern state of Rwanda, that at the time belonged to German East Africa, discussed a picture postcard published by Vincenti among other colonial photographs.. So I am not claiming any direct relation between the quote you refer to, which is from a general introductory paragraph to the reception, and ALT12 with ref. 39.
  • ALT12 ... that commercial portraits such as those by Carl Vincenti (example pictured) contributed to the racist discrimination of Africans?
Source: Ref. 39 about the role of historical photographs in stereotyping Tutsi people (Translation of the first sentence: "The photographs shown below are almost continuously racist, discriminatory and violate the personality of the depicted.") Munfarid1 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Prompted by your criticism of an "unbelievable" remedy, let me juxtapose my current text and the source:
Article Cited source (p. 18)
"Commercial studios selling portraits and postcards for the growing demand by Europeans produced less realistic portrayals of Africa and Africans than photographs by colonial authorities, scholars and private individuals. Photography studios took carefully staged photographs of people in traditional clothing and ornaments to create commercially succesful images. These artificial depictions reinforced existing stereotypes about Africa and Africans." "In comparison with photographs taken by colonial officials, scientists, and amateurs, commercial photographers catering for a European market for travel photography that had greatly expanded by the 1880s, created less authentic images of Africa and its peoples.
Large photographic companies...produced appealing, saleable photographs by carefully staging subjects to adopt certain poses and wear "typical" clothes and ornaments.
Their manipulated representations contributed further to a stereotype of Africa and Africans."
The only verbatim correspondence I can see are the words "photographs", "European", "commercial" and "stereotype of Africa and Africans". - "Africa" and "Africans" are common names, and as such not protected by copyright, the other four words are IMHO the best ones to describe these phenomenons. - If you think this must be replaced by other words with the same meaning, I would be grateful for your suggestion. After all, we are all collaborating to improve this article, and I am certainly open for such improvements. Munfarid1 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
"If you think this must be replaced by other words with the same meaning, I would be grateful for your suggestion." No, no, no, no, no. "Replacing by other words with the same meaning"? Is that seriously what you think gets around copyright? That you can rewrite Nineteen Eighty-Four just by replacing every single word and suddenly it's a new book with no copyright? That is as superficial a modification as you can get—the definition of WP:CLOP. Can you not see that "These artificial depictions reinforced existing stereotypes about Africa and Africans." is the same sentence as "Their manipulated representations contributed further to a stereotype of Africa and Africans" with some words swapped in and out? You should be summarising the information you cite, not duplicating it. The above three sentences in the source should be absolutely no more than two in the article, and more probably one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Given that this nomination is already several days past the two-month mark, the nomination will be marked for closure if the CLOP issues are not resolved promptly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 I have just reduced the three sentences to one: "In order to sell their pictures, studios produced staged images of Africans with traditional clothing and ornaments, reinforcing biased views of Africa." - Hopefully, this is an acceptable summary of the original section in the source of 69 words, and no more WP:CLOP. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Much better for that instance. Now the actual hook paragraph, where again I think there are issues. I don't speak German, so would I be right in saying that Peiter is saying that the photographs are almost always discriminatory—i.e. that certain photograph(s) are not? In short, is the connection between Vincenti's photographs and Peiter's descriptions of discrimination explicit or implicit? From my machine translation, all she seems to have to say is:

"A certain C. Vincenti, who was probably of Italian nationality, appears to have been active in a photography studio operating in Dar es Salaam. Photographs of this city dominate this very extensive collection. A few photographs of Rwanda have survived, but without any information about their exact context or even their creator. The results of Vincenti's work thus emerge without being able to make any biographical or colonial-political statements about the background of his imagery. Nevertheless, it is clear that Vincenti, like other photographers, was keenly interested in images of the Rwandan royal court, whose members tended to come from the ranks of the Tutsi."

which, while not positive, does not seem negative in the way the hook suggests. I am not even sure where the phrase "Vincenti as publisher was interested in selling stereotypical images" comes from.
Personally, I would be inclined to reject this review now on the grounds that too much effort is still needed to sort out the sourcing issues, by as I think I'm on the boundaries of WP:INVOLVED, I'll leave this for another promoter/admin to decide. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Carl_Vincenti&oldid=1293742737"