Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dead Confederate soldier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A dead confederate soldier during the American civil war

A dead confederate soldier during the civil war, 1865, Petersburg, Virginia, This photograph was taken April 1, 1865, in the Rebel trenches at Petersburg just after their capture by the Union troops
A dead confederate soldier during the civil war, 1865, Petersburg, Virginia, This photograph was taken April 1, 1865, in the Rebel trenches at Petersburg just after their capture by the Union troops
Alternate shot
Alternate shot
Reason
Impressive historical image and very encyclopedic, good condition considering the age
Articles this image appears in
American Civil War, Death
Creator
Thomas C Roche, died 1895
  • Support as nominator — Bleh999 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Nothing against the snap but showing images of dead people at these personal levels should be avoided. As a matter of fact, if we allow this as FP, we need to do the same in future if someone produces images of dead soldiers from the recent conflicts (inc. Iraq). I am not comfortable with either and hence the strong oppose to the FPC. --Kalyan 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia is not censored it is a policy not a guideline Bleh999 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I second everything Kaylan said. Wikipedia may not be censored, but there is a difference between having an image in Wikipedia and specifically granting it featured picture status, something which is reserved for the best of images. In my opinion this image bears no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. What does it show but the bashed face of a corpse? How will the viewer know which war it is illustrating? It is also hard to get a sense of the time period; it could easily be from WWII at first sight. Chris Buttigieg 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • your comments seems to speak favorably about the technical quality of the image however (WWII quality), anyway we already have a featured pic of confederate dead but this one is surely of a superior quality. Bleh999 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Powerful image, not replaceable due to era taken, but enc. value is moderate - what does it illustrate other than a dead human being? Pedro |  Chat  09:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments above. Chris Buttigieg 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I have no problem with the subject matter since Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think the image is of much use to the articles its in. Maybe someone can argue me to a Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-11 14:09Z
  • Oppose per Brian0918, Chris, and Pedro. --Peter 16:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, If he is a confederate soldier... Why does he have a "US" belt buckle? (or whatever that is) 8thstar 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I don't really see much encyclopedic value. If it was a wider image of a dead soldier on a notable battlefield, it'll have been a different story. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Support alternate good image to illustrated the civil war. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I want to support it, since it's a good clear shot from an historic period when many photos were awful, but it just isn't enc., and I find it difficult to really take in due to having to turn my head upside down. For the record, I am strongly inclined to support pictures of dead/wounded soldiers from any period, to help remind people what their leaders' distaste for diplomacy always results in. --TotoBaggins 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - illustrates Death very well. And much less inflammatory/arguably POV than an image of a dead person from a modern conflict would be. Debivort 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support alternate - The alternative shot is superior in my opinion. The first one seems to be cropped too close, almost voyeuristically so. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose crop, support full version. Roche's original composition is much better. Encyclopedic value is considerable given the quality of the photograph. I see we don't yet have an article on Thomas C. Roche, but I'm planning to try to write one in the next couple days. Chick Bowen 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and got started on the article. Incidentally, let me clarify what I say above: the top photograph here is not a digital crop but literally a cropped negative. In case that wasn't clear. Chick Bowen 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Alt The original is not as good a composition and has far less enc value. The alternative is really cool, amazingly high quality for the time period it was taken in, and paints enough of a picture for enc value. Also - good start to the article on the photographer. Zakolantern 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Regardless of non-censorship, it's simply bad taste to feature a photograph of a real corpse on the main page IMO. Not all Wikipedia readers will find this photo pleasant, and they will probably not get the chance to oppose it's nomination here if they do not know the WP processes.  Joseph C  Talk  16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to remind you that wikipedia is not censored --Hadseys 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Firstly, being promoted to a featured picture would not necessarily put it on the front page (those are Pictures Of The Day). Secondly, that said, the fact that it's a real (and recent as of photo creation) corpse wouldn't prevent it from becoming a POTD, as per this one that made many people uncomfortable. Yes, I know that's not a corpse, but to a degree it's a precedent. --Peter 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You do realize this was published as a stereograph in the 1800s, the era of so called Victorian censorship, besides even I stumbled onto this picture by chance when I was searching for something else, I wasn't warned of graphic content, I don't see why it should be too graphic for wikipedia Bleh999 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is it bad taste to show a war photograph on a site devoted in large part to history? It might be bad taste to put it as the lead image on flickr, but it is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia. Chick Bowen 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Hadseys: I know. I said regardless of non-censorship. Peter: I stand corrected - I mixed up FP and PotD obviously. Bleh999: You're argument is nonsense, as I am fully referring to the fact of it becoming PotD on the main page regardless of non-censorship of this wiki - nothing to do with general content or stumbling across it by accident as I also did. Chick Bowen: It's not bad taste to show it within the site - I was referring to having it featured on the main page. IN CONCLUSION: I have struck through my own vote, due to my confusion with Picture Of The Day. Thank you, especially Peter.  Joseph C  Talk  14:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support alternate: Original is too cropped. Adam Cuerden talk 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice photo, but I'm not getting a whole lot of message from it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose crop, support full version. That this image is of the Civil War is sufficient to make it encyclopedic. --Iamunknown 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus . MER-C 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)