Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crucified Soldier

Crucified Soldier

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 00:52:40 (UTC)

Reason: Striking design, high resolution and quality
Articles in which this image appears: The Crucified Soldier, Crucifixion in the arts
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
Creator: Fernando Amorsolo, restored by Crisco 1492

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer Edit. Very valuable illustration for the article. Jujutacular (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why does the poster have text in both Spanish and English? What's its historical background. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spanish text means the same thing as the English text, the poster was most likely used in some bilingual areas. I didn't see any commentary on it at loc: [1]. Jujutacular (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering who the artist is, the poster may have been published in the Philippines as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Without knowing the historic background of the image's unusual use of both English and Spanish, it's hard to see what it's EV is. As such, I'm regretfully going to ~~oppose~~ this nomination on EV ground. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOC says published in Manila, Philippines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        OK that helps, without more information it's hard to judge the EV of the image though. As such, I'm moving to neutral. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have at last count 11 FPs of Allied propaganda material and none for the Central Powers. I consider this a huge problem for Wikipedia's objectivity, to be rectified before we promote any more Allied material. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted time and again, that's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the overriding principles of any encyclopedia and as such, overrides the criteria. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just a function of availability as opposed to some other agenda? Particularly so since this is English Wikipedia. A great image with EV should always be open for consideration. Otherwise we will get rules like too many butterflies not enough moths, stop promoting hummingbirds until we have more crows. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Most German and other Central propoganda we have is of a very low resolution (the German archives gave us fairly small files, not like what is accessible through the LOC). Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Availability has little to do with it. We often oppose things not because something better is available, but because something better *could be* available. So saying we have lots of stuff in LOC is absolutely no excuse for systemic bias. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Availability does indeed have much to do with it. I find it odd you would argue otherwise. If the LOC gives Wiki hundreds of high quality images with good EV they should be judged on their own merit not predicated on the fact that the German Archives (or any other agency) didn't do the same. If they had I suspect we'd see more of them getting nominated. I'd love to see more German and Russian ones but if they aren't available I am not going to penalise the ones that do get nominated. Moreover, I am not convinced something better *could be* available actually applies to these particular posters. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should do more research before lunging into hyperbolic claims. Bundesarchiv has nothing to do with it as for all we know they have no appropriate images. Nor is LOC our only source for Allied images, so please stop implying this. Contentedness with having the victors write history is simply not an acceptable position for an encyclopedia. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject this has the most EV in is a decisively Allied one. I'd love a good quality Central poster; if I find one I'll be sure to nominate it. I just don't think we should penalise this one because we have many other propaganda posters. Would we say "too much da Vinci" if someone nominated another da Vinci work (or Goya, since that's what I've been digging up recently) Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, you have been nominating too much Goya and Whistler recently, and I stopped just short of making this a topic of conversation on the talk page. You're dragging this discussion into off topic territory, however. I'm deliberately making note of this. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, my recent painting nomination wasn't even Spanish. Alright, back to content creation. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLW, my premise is simply that more good quality Allied posters seem more readily availble than those of the Central Powers. Their sources or lack thereof are irrelevant to the discussion and I wasn't implying anything other than offering an example. If in your extensive research there is indeed high quality posters then they can be brought forward for nomination. It might help us avoid further hyperbolic statements like *Victors write history*. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No hyperbole on my part - see e.g. Philosophy of history#Historical accounts of writing history. I don't remotely understand how you can place the burden of providing materials on the occupied nation itself. The bottom line is you can't expect to make a good encyclopedia only from materials that conveniently drop into your lap, you have to put some actual effort into it. This may involve finding materials that aren't in the LoC. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good golly, you actually felt the need to lecture me. Look, I am not placing a burden on anyone. It should be readily apparent to you that people contribute what interests them. As such this encylopedia is wholly dependent on what drops in its lap. It may not be ideal but it is what we have to work with so make the most of it. When a source comes forward with hundreds of Central Powers propaganda posters I hope you'll be here to ensure we don't go too apeshit over it. I suggest you go look for them because I will be too busy taking pretty little pictures of old churches and forcing an Anglican agenda on this hapless encylopedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing an Anglican agenda? With all the British editors here, I hardly think that's necessary... Besides, I like the pictures of churches I see here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek :) I am neither Anglican nor British. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit Good reproduction and good EV. This picture is used in several places by WP and passes the criteria, so it deserves FP status. PLW, if you want to complain about our Anglican cabal, go find several of the high-rez, good quality Central posters, bring them here, and let us promote them. If we shoot them down because they're from the Central powers, then you can complain about systemic bias. Clegs (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. PLW confuses NPOV with systemic bias. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise a good point. How can we keep things NPOV, then? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other images would be good. However, the article caption starts with 'American propaganda poster depicting ...'. This largely takes care of the NPOV problem - the reader is made aware that the image is not a neutral depiction. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't get the systemic bias charge. We feature the good pictures that are available. We can't feature what we don't have, and it's not a zero-sum game: featuring any one image does not make it less likely that another image with a different subject will be featured. Chick Bowen 05:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we have 11 FPs of Allied propaganda already. We have absolutely none, zilch, zero for the Central Powers. If this doesn't strike you as a huge imbalance, I don't know what will. We're not talking about butterflies, mind you - we're talking about propaganda. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I spent about 30 minutes earlier today looking for high quality Soviet Posters. I saw one or two, but they were not definitely free. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's nice, but the Soviets were Allied. Going off topic again... Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support we run into the WP:FS issue here. What happens when there is a high quality file that we have several of the same time of? Since the imbalence isn't that high, I will go with a support. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit okay? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, and I count two preferences for the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me --Guerillero | My Talk 14:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Your Liberty Bond will help stop this Crisco restoration and colours.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]