Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 45.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2023 at 03:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Yann: What is your opinion about this vote, based on this comment --Wilfredor (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To make my vote clear: I don't trust Wafa at all (en.wiki: …the organization is viewed an arm of the Palestinian government, rather than an independent agency…) Simply, the quality of the image don't override possibly biased content. — Draceane talkcontrib. 11:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gathering images for a neutral encyclopedia means that we need good images from ALL sides in conflicts. This includes photos taken by both biased and neutral photographers. This is what we've always done (History started one second ago.) And we should process them by and by as we get them. We don't need to get one from each side at the same time to keep some sort of balance. Today there is a photo from Wafa, and tomorrow we might get one from the Israeli military (I'm sure there ar equally emotional photos from them too). We should collect the images and sort/review them only by their quality, not political sides. --Cart (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - 1) I see nothing in the description indicating this child should be described here as "smiling". Is that just based on the impressions of FPC participants? People make faces that look like smiling while crying, of course. 2) This is listed as "own work" by Batoul84, but also attributed to Wafa. Batoul84, could you confirm that you took this photo (for Wafa)? Perhaps the "own work" just needs to change? — Rhododendrites talk14:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decidedly mixed feelings here (because of the context as well as the photo). I agree with Cart that we absolutely should feature moving photos as we come across them. My only concern with featuring something that could be called "propaganda" is if it has the effect of deceiving the viewer, minimizes suffering, casts a group of people as less than human, or otherwise could be considered mis/disinformation or hateful. I don't think this falls into any of those, although I am unsure of whether it should have a star. If the goal is documenting historical events, I think we have other images that do this better. If the goal is documenting a human moment in the context of such an event, it may succeed, but it seems like this relies on provided context of a smiling child in a horrific moment ... and I'm just not sure that's what I see? Maybe it's just me. Holding off on voting to think more/get other opinions. — Rhododendrites talk14:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like these surfaces every time someone nominates an image from a new/ongoing conflict. Perhaps we can't remain as objective as we should while we are caught up in the swirls of impressions from the event. We are better at analysing photos from say WWII and the Vietnam War; also time has often provided enough info about the photos as well as sifted out what images remain as important. Perhaps we should only gather the images now and put them on hold for FPC for say a year, when we can review them with clearer minds and more info? Just a thought.
+1 on questioning the image narration (as well as the pumped-up "Peacemaking support" and these unnecessary POTY predictions) made by the nominator. To me the baby looks like it's crying. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the WikiProject has enough data storage space, to document both historic events and the human moments in them. --Cart (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]