Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wochenspruch der NSDAP 11 January 1943.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Wochenspruch der NSDAP 11 January 1943.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 10:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Very nice, that's the kind of information I'd expect from a FP candidate file description page. Thank you, and apologies for my strong language. I might be able to translate this into German later if I find a quiet moment. --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Question As a Jew who knows of dozens of relatives who were murdered by the Nazis in Poland, should I agree with you? For whatever reason, I don't, but I agree with the fruitful efforts to provide more context. I guess the question is whether by featuring this photo, we honor the man or his party. And I don't think saying that this is one of the best photos on the site and showing how propaganda in service of evil can be effective, we are thereby doing the equivalent of erecting an equestrian statue to Robert E. Lee in the public square. I had more trouble with a nomination of a photo of an equestrian statue of Khmelnitsky, because that is an existing heroic statue that is currently in the public square and honors a notorious Jew-killer. This would be a photo of a document by a party that is blessedly out of power in Germany and Austria. But I think the crux of the issue can be reduced to this: Is a photo of an immoral document itself inherently immoral? I don't think so, but I respect the argument that by featuring the photo, we risk promoting the contents of the document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always believed that FP should be for any images that illustrate a subject particularly well, while POTD/POTY are for images that we are proud to display as a community. Certain types of FPs should not make it into the main page IMO, such as those depicting criminals, graphic violence, or sexual acts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khmelnitsky ended up being POTD for 2020-08-24. I do not want such kind of material to be given a platform here. This poster is already VI, on my opinion its more than enough. --Andrei (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I surely respect your opinion on this. I recused myself from voting on one of the nominations of a photo of that equestrian statue because it wasn't clear to me that on the basis of quality and composition, it should be opposed, but I couldn't support portraying a heroic statue of him neutrally while the image of the statue itself seemed to honor him. However, I feel like this is different in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I think that those wrong hands will probably get on it without our help, if they haven't already. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I honestly think that the context of this - a cry to finish the job then, not leave it to the descendants, and how it can only be seen in a limited range of contexts that all help put a lie to the common myth that the general public was not aware of the Holocaust - I think the encyclopedic value outweighs any remaining propoganda value. I would suggest POTD is very careful with descriptions (Buidhe has said it should be pulled from POTY consideration above, so as long as the POTY organisers are informed of that, I think we can ignore this issue), but I think that, as long as a certain amount of care is taken, this sort of thing is valuable. Buidhe has been working hard to write, in an appropriate, academic, not-being-a-Nazi manner, about aspects of the history of Naziism over on en-Wiki, and this sort of visual evidence is helpful to such articles.
Obviously, there are reasons to be careful with such things. Our goal is to educate about, not accidentally promote. But I think this is about as good of an illustrative example as one can hope for, and - although perhaps I might be naive here - I don't see how it could be used to promote modern neo-Naziism, as it's very much of its time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Amusing that Göring is made to look so leaderly and heroic here rather than the Jabba-esque figure he had become by then.

    Since everyone seems to be weighing in on the morality of featuring this, I will, in addition to seconding Peulle and Ikan, note that it makes us think about propaganda and how easily it can sway people, including us. The quote, outside of its historical context, is something almost any politician could say, and many have (including, I think, John F. Kennedy) and which in many other contexts many of us here would not disagree with (In fact, this is basically one of the arguments for addressing climate change now).

    It also shows (like the Pernkopf atlas, an article which I did a lot of work on) how artistic talent can be harnessed to execrable causes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Support Have hesitated for a few days, but Ikan, Adam, and Daniel are right. --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Alright, I've slept over this a couple of times and I think that this is now in a state where it can be featured. --El Grafo (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support For good articles, we need good images of both heroes and villains. I know, I was involved in getting a drawing of Kim Jong-un before we had a photo. Good illustrations are always a premium however distasteful the subject. --Cart (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Printed#Posters and advertisements
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Wochenspruch_der_NSDAP_11_January_1943.jpg&oldid=432297394"