Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Heckler

Heckler

 * Reason:As good a visual capture of heckling as we're likely to get. Happened during an encyclopedic crisis.  Restored version of File:Heckler.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Heckler, Iran_hostage_crisis
 * Creator:Warren K. Leffler, for US News and World Report (public domain by donation)

Some more feedback on enc would be appreciated. MER-C 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. An excellent representation of heckling.  Syn  ergy 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support, high technical quality and a great composition, but I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value. The chap could be doing lots of things- it's not particularly obvious he's heckling. It's a hard subject to illustrate- this is probably about as good as it is going to get. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bibliographic notes state that he is heckling. Since that is fundamentally a verbal activity, the still shot of a man leaning across a police line with an extended arm, open mouth, and angry expression while protesters behind him hold a placard is probably the most visually representative depiction we could get in a single frame.  Durova Charge! 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low EV. This isn't really a subject that can be illustrated by a picture. A video would probably be the way to go. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine picture that illustrates heckling well. If you're going to heckle, it's usually at an official event or public meeting, so this is fine. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support on EV alone. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support As good an illustration of the subject as is possible to get in a still image.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Dude looks like trouble. Unfortunate the "Go back to your land" (?) sign is cut off... would it help to crop that guy out altogether? Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We would lose part of a policeman's shirt to take out the sign entirely. Durova Charge! 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Before this closes, will someone please explain how this picture satisfies FP criterion 5? Since heckling is, as the nominator herself states, "fundamentally a verbal activity," how can this picture possibly have the exceptional EV that we demand of featured pictures? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this has little to no EV for heckling. The opening line from Heckling: "A heckler is a person who shouts a disparaging comment at a performance or event, or interrupting set-piece speeches, for example at a political meeting." This looks like one protester shouting abuse at an opposing group of protesters. This is taking a very loose, and quite inaccurate IMO, definition of the term which is unsupported by the article. I haven't looked at its use in the other article. --jjron (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bibliographic notes at the Library of Congress specifically state that he is heckling. The photographer was an experienced photojournalist for a major news source, and qualifies as an expert speaking within his expertise in distinguishing heckling from other forms of antisocial behavior at public events (recordkeeping documents are the responsibility of the photographer).  So unless there is a reliable source to challenge what we already have, this line of questioning strays toward original research.  Durova Charge! 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the bibliographic notes say if the picture doesn't do a good job of illustrating the topic of the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really care what the notes say. If a photo of a frog is labelled as a cow, that doesn't give it EV for the cow article, it just means it's wrong. --jjron (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair objection. Durova Charge! 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it illustrates the heckling article. If it finds a more appropriate home, I don't know, protestor or something, you can strike my 'vote'. --jjron (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment. I've thought a bit more about this. A number of voters - dare I say almost all - claim this is as good a photo of heckling as you could get, or that it's something a still image couldn't really illustrate at all or any better. Even disregarding the discussion just above about whether or not this guy is really a heckler, I still disagree with this point of view. IMO, a high EV shot of heckling would show both the heckler and the person being heckled. This is both quite possible and realistic to expect, but obviously this particular image doesn't do so, which is why I don't think it is a good illustration of heckling. Other thoughts on this? --jjron (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as far as it is for Heckling. I agree with Jjron that an image will never particularly well illustrate this, and that in this case it is not clear that he is heckling rather than just shouting abuse - my opinion of heckling is that the abuse or comment is when another person is making a speech, not illustrated here.  For example, someone in a crowd at a stand-up comedy with both comedian and heckler in view would better illustrate this.  |→ Spaully₪† 11:17, 7 April 2009 (GMT)

MER-C 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)