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

File:Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 45.jpg edit

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.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info A ~~smiling~~ Palestinian infant receiving treatment at the overcrowded emergency ward of Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City following an Israeli airstrike on October 11, 2023. Created by Wafa (Q2915969) - uploaded by Batoul84 - nominated by ★ -- ★ 03:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaking support This moving image reveals a baby's innocence in the face of the horrors of war. The guideline part "[…] strong mitigating reasons" for low resolution is perfectly applicable in this striking case. ~~BTW, it's clearly a POTY finalist. -- ★ 03:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
I just Support. ★ 16:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution & one-sided propaganda. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^talk_contrib. 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 ^talk | 14:09, 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 ^talk | 14:09, 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]

Oppose I have looked and pondered and looked and pondered. I don't want to add to the very difficult discussion on the context. I will only talk about the picture. It is moving, but it is not a techically excellent image. And I don't mean just the relatively low resolution. I don't want to go into too many details, as it is surely almost impossible to take excellent images under these conditions. Still - the crop of the feet, the blurry hands ... this just is not an FP for me, sorry. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could do without all the side comments. Small size but intriguing photo and framing gives plenty of context of what's happening. - Benh (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alu (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below average from a technical point of view. Other points of view could be assessed more objectively if the conflict were over. Therefore, the timing of the candidacy is unfortunate. --Milseburg (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Draceane and others --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ★ 20:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]