Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apache-killing-Iraq.avi.ogg

Apache helicopter killing

 * Reason:It's a difficult decision to nominate a recent video where people die, particularly of an ongoing war. No disrespect is intended toward the surviving families, and no political statement is implied in this nomination.  This is war, though: not sanitized by selection or distanced by time.  And war is important and encyclopedic.
 * Articles this image appears in:Human rights in post-invasion Iraq
 * Creator:United States Department of Defense


 * Support as nominator Durova Charge! 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Considering the source, the rather sensitive nature involved, and the relatively high quality. Dr. Extreme (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Because it's highly disturbing. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but I think we can do without the scare quotes in the caption; whatever your feelings are about the situation, the men shot were suspects, and putting quotes in there makes it sound like an ironic statement, which is POV. Matt Deres (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to modify for maximum neutrality. It looked like neutral distancing to me, yet in subject matter as sensitive as this it's important to take a full range of perspectives into account.  Durova Charge! 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral The video was first released on a right wing forum by a member of the U.S military (filmed december 2003?), rather than through an official source, this is taken on a farm and there is a tractor on the left, the tube like object may not necessarily be a weapon, but a marker pole used for plowing irregularly shaped fields.  I don't think the encyclopedic value is great because of the caption, if it's used in the article about human rights in Iraq it should go into how that they may not have been insurgents and the fact that the wounded are also killed and the act depicted in this video in particular was criticized by many including a retired general.  If you change the caption I will change to support. Shifthours (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support if scare quotes removed from caption - Wikipedia guidlines are to not use scare quotes. Saying they were suspected insurgents is a fact.  Whether they were insurgents or not does not change the fact. Johntex\talk 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * actually to be npov would means you should state the U.S military believes they were suspected insurgents while others have disagreed. Shifthours (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point; changed description per request. Durova Charge! 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not just the US military that uses the phrase "suspected Iraqi insurgents" with no qualifier or scare quotes. The main source in the article uses the same phrase.  Johntex\talk 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The new caption doesn't assert that the suspicion was unique to the U.S. military. Go ahead and modify the caption if you think it's important to forestall that misinterpretation.  Durova Charge! 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your caption is a nice improvement - thank you. I made one change I think is better, which is to remove the "suspected".  Now that we are stating who believes they were insurgents, I think it is clear that the US military believed the actually were insurgents, not just suspected insurgents.  OK with everyone? Johntex\talk 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:ENC. Not nice. Not pretty. However thought provoking and encourages a desire to learn more about the subject. Exactly what WP is about. Pedro : Chat  21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Encyclopedic and depicts the subject of modern warfare, as well as related topics, well. Hello32020 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support. DAMN! Angelono2008 (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Highly informative, good quality for what it is. faithless   (speak)  10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, enc, but not very high quality. gren グレン 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Very encyclopedic. Video quality is not significant importance here. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if this was the highest quality video there was in existence. But it isn't.  This is analogous to a poor scan of an encyclopedic image.  All it would take was getting access to some recorded news footage from when this was played and ripping it.  It's very doable. gren グレン as 128.175.80.58 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--Malachirality (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)