Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 01:56:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I definitly could if everyone here insists, but i´d prefer not to since a) It could be the signature of the artist. Tagging this wall would be insane b) I want to keep it as authentic as possible. Retouching propaganda feels a little awkward... Nikopol (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion taggers are insane. If I'm right that this is just a tagger, then to be true to the original work it would be better to restore it (documented of course), but I understand your hesitation (hence my support either way). --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion should be undertaken in a deletion request IMO. Otherwise people's votes will be a mixture of two different issues. I think we should stick to a FP vote here. --99of9 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before uploading my images, I asked at the help desk whether I could, and noone could really tell me how the legal situation is, since there is little factual information available. However, despite my research, I found no evidence that there is no freeedom of panorama in Iran (there is rather a lack of entries regarding Iran). If you are looking for a practical indicator: take a look at the category Iran: If there actually was no freedom of panorama, one third of the photots of Iran we have at commons would be illegal. But regarning these files, noone suggested deletion. I don´t see why my picture should be treated differently. It certainly would be important to find answers considering the legal questions, but I think this is not the right forum to do so. Nikopol (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Iranian copyright law does not say anything about FOP exemptions, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since not only my picture, but a huge part of our stock of pictures from Iran would be concerned in this case, I advocate discussing the legal status of pictures from Iran in an appropriate forum. As we have such a huge amount of images which have not been marked for deletion, perhaps the legal situation is not that clear. I know close to nothing about iranian copyright law, but I oppose to my picture beeing treated differently for whatever reason. Nikopol (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there was already a response Nikopol (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps I should also have made clear in the beginning that this image does in no way reflect my opinion" Thank you for that. It was important for me to know!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People always seem to think that you support/approve of what ever is in the pictures you nominate. I'm no fan of the military, but everyone seems to think that I am. Interest in a subject is not the same as approving of it. I just think they take interesting pictures. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose pure hate propaganda. Ranbar (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Commons should not promote propaganda GilCahana (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Didn't we had enough with this garbage? Is this the "I want to upset Jews and promote propaganda of hatred"? Where does the world going? Kooritza (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Approve As an Israeli user, I can see the historical value of the picture. Such hateful propaganda can only show the hateful nature of its creators. With proper text and put in a proper historical context it will serve Wikicommon's purpose as a picture of unique historic value. Almog (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I thought about that image for a long time, and decided to oppose it. It is a great quality and very interesting image, and it is inside the project scope, yet I am not sure about featuring such image. IMO many people are not educated enough to recognize it as a propaganda even, if it is put in the right category. I would also add that I am against politicizing FP. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose 89.138.141.27 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is absolutely true that this is an example of aggressive propaganda and I also see that it could offend a lot of people. But I still think that it is important to cover such topics in wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and as such it should inform people even about terrible things. Kooritza, I don´t know anything about past discussions. I can imagine that articles related to Israel, the holocaust, etc... are often vandalized and victim of antisemitic edits, but this was absolutely not my intent here. In my opinion, it is impossible to get rid of antisemitic media (we all know the internet), so we should rather try to put it in a context and explan uninformed people why it is wrong. That does not mean we should put on wikipedia all of the stuff we find, but some important examples should be discussed in an appropriate way. If you look at articles of quality newspapers covering the hostage crisis, you will find they often use images of these murals. I think it should be possible in wikipedia to somehow cover propaganda, but on the other hand make shure the intent of doing so (p.ex. by appropriate categorization, extensive descriptions, etc.). Not featuring this image on the front page could be a way of achiving this goal, and perhaps some users with greater knowledge about the topic could write a more extensive description text for the image. Nikopol (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean that you have malicious intentions, and I agree that wikipedia must demonstrate this horrible and disgusting things. However, such sensitive issues must be dealt in the context of an article in order to prevent damage to readers that aren't experts, and I don't believe that it is possible to do that in the few lines permitted in FP. Kooritza (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose antisemi and anti america, doesn't deserve the honor. Yiftach T (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not anti-semitic image,it is anti-Israel, which is a very big difference. If it were anti-semitic, I would have opposed it right away--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I actually opposed the image because no matter what it represents a propaganda of hate, and IMO Commons FP is a wrong platform for such images. Besides as I was explained few minutes ago the mural is antisemitic as well. Even I had not enough knowledge to recognize it as such that only proves one more time my point - the image cannot be featured. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant as per Almog. Your name was just below it and I confused the two. If you'd like me to explain my reasons further, I'm more than happy to. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Teheran_US_embassy_propaganda_grasp.jpg&oldid=76687314"