Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einsatzgruppen

Executions of Kiev Jews[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 13:17:18 (UTC)

Reason: Historical value
Articles in which this image appears: Einsatzgruppen, The Holocaust in Ukraine
FP category for this image: History
Creator: unknown

Support as nominator --P. S. Burton (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I’d personally like to stay away from shocking and depressing images (people being blow away counts as that, IMO) as I don’t think they are fitting for display on the Main Page as a Featured Picture for 24 hours. While this is certainly “eye-catching”, I don’t personally think it will achieve the desired effect of “being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article”—at least not in the right way; Wikipedia’s Main Page should not be in-your-face shocking. Perhaps a FA on the Main Page with a less shocking picture would be best. Greg L (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a Main page voting page - this could still be an FP without being on main page so please assess your vote based on the quality of the picture not the shock value of it on the main page... gazhiley.co.uk 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoting you: Main page voting page: Please provide a link to where I can vote for pictures that have already been awarded FP status are again being voted upon to see if they will go to the Main Page. Last I looked, every single one of our pictures went to a giant queue (totaling over 400 entries at last count, with Howchen wrestling with how to spread out all our bug, bird, and Chicago entries). If there is no such voting page, then please forgive me for not wanting to see what I consider to be inappropriate content being featured on the Main Page. I can see that you feel this is appropriate there. I’ll thank you to not presume to dictate to me what I may think or how I may express my thoughts here. Just like the lead picture in our Vulva article (which is tack-sharp, has profoundly high EV, and has excellent lighting), I don’t think it either is appropriate as a “Featured Picture”, sorry. Just because we have articles and pictures on Wikipedia, does not mean it is always suitable as an in-your-face FP on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Greg, please see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused
      - Your response was thoroughly unresponsive. Those are 16 pictures Howcheng et. al decided not to put onto the Main Page for various reasons. Some have to do with technical issues such as wide, narrow images not fitting the given space there. Others, like a bikini chick, have to do with WP:Common sense because there was a lack of common sense being exercised here. As he wrote there, those 16 pictures were skipped and are unlikely to appear as Picture of the day for various reasons. Would you like to widen the list of unsuitable entries there to 17 or even 18?
        Now… what I had challenged you do do is back up an implicit assertion of yours when you wrote Main page voting page and provide a link to a place where pictures that we unwisely vote here for being a Featured Picture on the Main Page are again voted upon for actually going to the Main Page. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee: In fact, there is no second vote to decide what goes onto the Main Page, is there(?); that’s what this place is about. Just because one of our volunteers, Howcheng, has to (*sigh*) and not expose 5th-graders who come to Wikipedia to a picture of people being being shot in the back and clouds of pink mist billowing out is zero excuse for us to not exercise some of that common sense ourselves.
        If 5th-graders are to be exposed to this provocative, upsetting, or shocking material, they can type “The Holocaust in Ukraine” it into the ‘Search’ field. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Greg, if we're on the topic of challenges, I would ask where on this page subject matter is a criteria? I'd also point to this line: "Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." Cowtowner (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, forgot to sign. It was I, who wrote the comment above Greg's. However, Greg, you need to chill, and read your own comments, which are long, rambling and confrontative. Whether or not something like this should be showed at the front page is a matter of a serious ethical debate for the whole community, and not the above rant. Don't confuse your own opinions with "common sense" P. S. Burton (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        On an other note. I was showed both this picture and pictures of vulvas in school (in History and sex-ed respectively), and took no harm. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Don’t start wikilawyering with me now. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This isn’t remotely about whether the image is “classically beautiful”. You know that; so I can’t imagine why you tried pulling that whopper out of your hat. We don’t have any guideline that says “Dear small club of people who ofttimes have no common sense: please don’t award FP-status to a picture of a topless chick because it ain’t going onto the Main Page and will simply have to make some volunteer go add it to the 16-item ‘discard’ pile.”
        BTW, whether you, P. S. Burton, were shown this picture of a vulva in school has zero bearing on whether it is a wise idea to feature it on the Main Page for 24 hours for shock value. I’m done dealing with you today as my BS filter became clogged with tar balls of nonsense. Goodbye; you get the last word. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Reminding you that we have criteria that do not involve subject matter is a far cry from wikilawyering. As for this being about classic beauty that is exactly what you made it about. You are opposing, so far as I can tell, because you find the subject matter unappealing because of its moral implications (in essence: classical beauty = butterflies, not human tragedy). Now, if you want to have a reasonable discussion stop talking about topless women and deal with the matter at hand like an adult. Cowtowner (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        While I do understand your reasoning, I do not agree. I suppose our senses just ain't common. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Besides, we have featured controversial images before
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lynching
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln assassination conspirators execution
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nagasakibomb.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German V-2 rocket attack aftermath and victim
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Conf dead chancellorsville
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ruined Train Cars
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Circumcision
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Filipino casualties on the first day of war.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Korean War causality

P. S. Burton (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm kind of in agreement with Greg here. On one hand Wikipedia is not censored and yes, tragedies must be documented, but I wouldn't want to look at a picture of what looks like a family getting killed all day, half the time I think of Michael Haneke I want to chain him up in a cellar for "Funny Games". Feature, maybe, POTD, maybe not for me.. --I'ḏ ♥One 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tragedies need documented. While not the best-quality photo, this is a sight we were not meant to see at all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support again per adam, as per my vote on the above nom... and Greg see my edit on that as it goes the same for this... gazhiley.co.uk 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support to make it official. Per above and the quote that both Gaz and I posted. Cowtowner (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of dirt and scratches- could this not benefit from some cleanup work? J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs 20 minutes of cleanup. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. While this has strong EV, it needs to be cleaned up (which should be possible without changing the image in any significant way). Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sasata and Nick-D. High EV but also a high need of technical cleanup. - Darwinek (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with the above. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changed from Support - I never noticed that it could be cleaned up a bit - my attention was drawn to other elements of the picture... gazhiley.co.uk 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]