Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anti-Israel Protest

2009 Anti Israel Protest

 * Reason:Nominating these two images as a set with the recent preference for a single image, now nominating as alternatives, since one shows the wide view and the vast number of people and the other focus on the slogan. The images are of good quality and good EV, and much better than the images which appeared in the local newspapers.
 * Articles this image appears in:International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Professional photograph of current affairs. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I support selecting one of these as FP, with preference for option 1. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Strong Support The second image is better I think for EV, but a question... the soft patches - some parts of the image are very soft, much softer than other parts that are in the same plane. Especially around the edges of the signs at the top of the frame. My first thought was heat haze but maybe its motion? Mfield (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

--Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this one long and hard before coming to a vote and i think encouraging people to go out and document important events in the world far outweighs any minor issues with the image. If we want to have strong pertinant imagery then we need to highlight good examples that we have, wikipedia will only be improved by people going out to cover this kind of event. Mfield (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The shutter was quite fast, I don't know what could have caused it Muhammad (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose For one I don't support the concept of a set of featured photos; I think one should pick the best, most illustrative picture to nominate.  It's easy and common to have many shots of the same subject from different angles or focal lengths; unless they only make sense as a group, I don't think more than one needs to be nominated.  The recent nom of the pin tumbler locks diagram is an example of where it makes good sense to nominate a set.  As for EV, I think either one has has some, but not a lot, given that Wikipedia Wikipedia is not a news site.  It does illustrate the "International Reaction..." article, but those kinds of articles are a little "newsy" for my taste anyway, and sometimes they get merged into the main article after a couple years. Fletcher (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the articles do get merged, surely the editors will consider using a FP to describe the situation :) Muhammad (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to Fletcher, not just sometimes, often. There is usually a big "stink" over the article, with a large frenzy of edits for say, a week, and then the article disappears. I doubt the eventual EV of this picture, as it could [IMO] easily lose it in say, a month. As a result, right now I'll abstain. However, if this leads to a real war (look up definition), then I will gladly support. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not like the situation in the middle east any more than it is, but I looked up war as you suggested. Answers.com "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Wordweb Princeton University PC Dictionary," The waging of armed conflict against an enemy." Surely the situation falls into these definitions, doesn't it? Muhammad (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Either. Eventually the content in those article might get integrated into Gaza–Israel conflict (which links back to articles in 2004 or so) but the image would still have EV there and the image does ultimately record a historical event. It could always be thrown into Protest or something generic too. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original a more focused composition. Durova Charge! 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original as per noodle and durova. --Russavia Dialogue 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. Good shot and I agree that if the article merges, it will still have sufficient EV. And besides, if it doesn't, we can always consider delisting. There isn't any point looking too far into the future with FPs. It is only the present that matters. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. Both are well-composed and encyclopedic, and I would support Alt 1 also except for the focus.  Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original Good composition and, of course, encyclopaedic value. A moment of historic significance. Elucidate ( light up ) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Fletcher. News photo? Yes. FP? No. Yes, I believe we should wait until the end of the war. I'm they'll many more interesting images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that this is an interesting image. Different images show different perspectives, and can be featured differently. After the war, we may get a picture of the guys signing a treaty and we may be able to feature that as well, even though that will be a news picture, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't feature this one. That's like saying, Hey you know, last year's movies were good but I think this year we'll get better ones, so we should't award the Oscars this year and wait for next year :) Muhammad (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons, I don't think their very good, in the original, half the field is out of focus, and the alternative is awkwardly small and is crowded with identical signs. It just doesn't see that great to me. Pstanton 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
 * In the original the field is out of focus to divert the viewer's vision to the sign. Its called creative use of Depth of Field. Muhammad (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original Good composition, and capturing a historical moment happening around us in the world today. A302b (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, strongly. The picture is a good solid picture, not sure it's FP quality in itself but that's not my main problem.  It's a picture from Tanzania, not exactly the forefront of protests against the conflict.  If this was an image from Instanbul or London or one of the major protests I wouldn't be so much against this.  It's also a little bit of presentism because we need to step back and wait to know which of the protests are deemed important at least a week or two after this to see which picture should be featured.  The image shows one sign and isn't particularly evocative of a protest or show the character of the protest on a broader scale. This and this are what I think of as protest images and maybe we won't have any like that... but I saw the protests in Bordeaux today (didn't bring camera) but there were definitely shots that would capture it better than a narrow shot of one sign clearly shown.  I say we wait until this conflict is over and then go through whatever pictures there are and find the best.  If this proves to be the best then maybe then I'll go for it. gren グレン 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But I think from a number of discussions about this on the FPC talk page, the consensus is that a FP only needs to show an aspect of the subject well. It doesn't have to represent it absolutely. If anything, this image illustrates a culture/beliefs that are under-represented on Wikipedia and on FPC (although single-handedly, Muhammad may be changing this) and as such, that may actually make it a better candidate. London or Istanbul might have a greater prominence in the news, but why are their protesters more important than Tanzanians? It doesn't look like a tiny gathering. You are right though that this is an conflict that is constantly evolving and other images may present themselves, but if there are two great images from different regions, we can just as easily feature both. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Diliff and Muhammad. I changed to neutral based on your arguments.  My bias was that the most important protests were 1) the largest (Turkey) or 2) those in the areas involved (Israel / Gaza) or 3) and domestic pressure countries that will place big diplomatic roles in the UNSC, negotiations for cease fire (U.S., EU, maybe Arab league).  I probably deserve a CSB award of shame for that because we must represent areas which do create an important and under represented aspect.  That being said, I think the picture could show more and I will still choose to wait until this is over to pick an FP.  Thanks for your responses and thanks for pictures that are hard to find elsewhere, Muhammad. :) --gren グレン 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tanzania has a large population of Muslims who are vocal, expressing many of their dislikes through peaceful protests. There have been protests against the Publication of the Porphet's caricatures and against the Hizbullah-Israel 2006 War. All these protests were attended by tens of thousands of people, but you will not find much mention of this in the wikipedia articles or in the news, due to the low media exposure. I sent a few of this protests low resolutuion pictures to CNN and BBC and they couldn't wait to show them:-) Apart from illustrating the nature of this and many other such protests, the picture IMO also shows that Africans too are actively involved in the world picture, what a London or Beirut image would be unable to show. I think Dliff mentioned the rest. Thanks. Muhammad (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just happened to stumble across a gallery on the protests worldwide on my local (Melbourne) newspaper's website and thought I would share it. These image are from professional news agencies in Los Angeles, Mexico City, Dubai, Washington D.C., Montreal, Buenos Aires, Ankara, Damascus, Athens, New York, London and yes, Melbourne. They do a good job of expressing emotion, but I'm not sure how many would actually be FP material. Credit to Muhammad for getting a shot that (by the looks of consensus) is. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem to love the ultra wide angles for the exaggerated perspective! Noodle snacks (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A protest in Tanzania is just as newsworthy as one in London, but that's the problem -- it's more news than encyclopedic. In answer to Diliff, it doesn't show anything about Tanzania's culture, other than their style of hats, and you have to be very careful about inferring people's beliefs from attendance at a protest.  Photography is a powerful medium but it has the potential to confuse or mislead as well as enlighten.  What I don't like about protests is that they reduce people to a group mentality based around signs and slogans.  I'd like to know what that guy in the foreground thinks: ok, so he is protesting Israel, but is he protesting that Israel's response is disproportionate to Hamas's rocket attacks, or is he protesting that Israel responds at all, or is he protesting violence per se and wants peace and reconciliation between Palestinians and Jews, or is he protesting that the Jews have not yet been driven into the sea, or was he just trying to cross the street and got swept up in a huge mass of people? :-)  I can see that the news agencies feel obligated to go take pictures any time there is noise and excitement, but as an encyclopedia I think we should be featuring pictures that communicate some clear meaning, not just that some people somewhere protested Israel.  Fletcher (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the original picture above was used as the cover page for this online magazine. Muhammad (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting crop there... Fletcher (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I thought you would like to know the link that allows you to see the past covers on our magazine (http://www.ovimagazine.com/gallview/3/869). Thanks again for allowing the use of such a great image.Butcam (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)