Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alben W. Barkley at the Buchenwald concentration camp

Alben W. Barkley at the Buchenwald concentration camp edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2011 at 16:31:27 (UTC)

Original – Senator Barkley, a member of the U.S. Congressional Nazi crimes committee visiting Buchenwald concentration camp shortly after its liberation.

Reason: Undoubtedly graphic, like James E. Myers's image, but astounding and historically important.
Articles in which this image appears: Alben W. Barkley, Buchenwald concentration camp, Harry S. Truman, Nazi Germany
FP category for this image: History/World War II
Creator

Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - historically important photograph, high EV, and also IMO very well took. --Xijky (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I understand the importance of such photos, but on a philisophical and moral level I cannot help but oppose the elevation of such a photo, depicting the dark and shameful underbelly of humanity, to any sort of featured status here. Imagine being the relative of one of those bodies and seeing them plastered on the front of Wikipedia as a "Featured Picture of the Day". Out of respect for these dead, I will not support it. JBarta (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being pictured doesn't imply picture of the day. Read the criteria and vote accordingly. Within what is legal, philosophy nor morality have no place in selecting featured pictures (nor choosing what we write wikipedia articles about). JJ Harrison (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make a deliberate choice not to surrender my sense of decency at the door when I edit Wikipedia. JBarta (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Display of this image would only be indecent if it was used for (say) antisemitism for example. It isn't here. This image and others like it are of tremendous historical importance. Any scholarly text on this subject could be expected to include such imagery. It is fine if you or others can't handle graphic images, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more closely at what I wrote, I'm not suggesting the photo not be used, nor am I suggesting it's not of historical importance. I'm just suggesting we make a choice not to use it in a certain way (elevating it in any way "above" any other image). And you may lose the condescending statement about not being able to "handle graphic images". JBarta (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am just suggesting that you start voting according to the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have some respect for other editor's opinions. There is certainly a moral (and editorial) argument that an image such as this should not be presented outside of appropriate contexts (an article on the holocaust for example). You are entitled to disagree with that, but please stop hounding Jbarta. He is entitled to express his opinion here. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- If it does get promoted maybe put under Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused? Spongie555 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree strongly with JJ and Spongie. This should be kept away from the main page- this is a harrowing and graphic image; even though it's one that everyone can respect that this topic has genuine historical and academic significance (as opposed to some of them that we keep off the main page), I think most of us will be able to see that this is not something we should be forcing on any and all. However, whether or not we want something on the main page has no bearing on whether it should be featured- instead, we must ask whether this meets the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support ---> We can't shy away from our past. It is important that people in the future read about it so that such things do not happen in the future. I was actually neutral to the photo, but the above comment made me change my mind. No offense. Hariya1234 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to your comment only by saying this... such things will continue to happen whether people read about things like this or not. Humans are not evil to each other because they don't know about past evils. They are evil to each other because it is in our nature to be evil to each other. It is also in our nature to love each other. Such is the duality of man. The primary thrust of my opinion was to avoid elevating our evil side to the level of our good side. JBarta (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A dust/hair cleanup would be desirable though. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should do that yourself. Zoom in up close and edit out those bits of dust and hair. If it starts bothering you in the least, just remind yourself that you're above all that pesky morality & decency business and you're doing a valuable service by making this image a proper featured picture. JBarta (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would typically oppose based on the watermarks, but that feels somehow puerile. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support You can write all you want about the inhumanity during the holocaust but this picture would do more to drive the point home than any prose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Watermarks aside, a comprehensive restoration is required here for thumb prints, scratch marks, etc. I see no reason to waive this requirement. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that the historic value of the photo outweighs the minor blemishes. Although I believe that this photo meets the FP Criteria, I don't want this to be a Picture of the Day. Pine^talk 08:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mostly per PLW, but I do think the watermarks are far from ideal. If we're going to promote something like this, I think we should make sure we get it right. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't think we should be voiding the usual practice of restoration on a sentimental or emotional point. Julia\^talk 22:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose till restoration is done. Clegs (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]