Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iranian hostage crisis protest

Man holding sign during Iranian hostage crisis protest, 1979
[[Image:Man holding sign during Iranian hostage crisis protest, 1979.jpg|thumb|200px|Man holding sign during Iranian hostage crisis protest, 1979

Alternate captions:

A man exemplifying anti-Iranian sentiments during a 1979 Washington, D.C. student protest of the Iranian hostage crisis. His raised sign reads "deport all Iranians, get the hell out of my country" and "Release all Americans now" on the reverse side.

Anti-Iranian sentiments were particularly prevalent during the Iranian hostage crisis. This photo of a 1979 student protest in Washington, D.C. shows a man holding a sign which reads "deport all Iranians, get the hell out of my country", with "Release all Americans now" on the reverse side.]]
 * Reason:Historical image, enc value showing clearly the Anti-Iranian feelings in USA in the months of Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 following the revolution in Iran The hostage crisis was one of the most known, important events of its kind in world history. And plus that, the image has a very good quality and composition IMO. It's not the usual cliché "black" racism photo.
 * Articles this image appears in:Iran hostage crisis Racism in the United States Anti-Iranian sentiments
 * Creator:Trikosko, Marion S.
 * Nominator: Arad
 * Info Please specify the version you prefer. Thanks in advance for your votes. --Arad 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Both With preference to edit &mdash; Arad 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support It looks somewhat grainy to me and there's not as much focus on the subject as I might like, but I like the picture overall. ShadowHalo 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support ack ShadowHalo. Well put.--HereToHelp 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I don't find this racist picture very striking, but I do find it offensive. —Pengo 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (changed to strong oppose as no specific details for this image can be given). —Pengo 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO, the point is that it's so offensive toward Iranians that it's striking how people can be so racist on something that is not even the Iranian people's fault. --Arad 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Edit 1 Historic, striking, well composed etc. --Cody.Pope 04:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support (Edit 1). Hate the racism, but love the depiction of it.  And I have to say that I disagree somewhat with ShadowHalo regarding the focus of the subject... Having the subject so distant gives a "lost in the crowd" feel, and the people surrounding the subject add to the chaotic atmosphere.  tiZom(2¢)  14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Very offensive. Imagine that you are an Iranian, and you see this picture on the main page or even the FP's icon in the upper part of the picture's page. I think you wouldn't like to visit Wikipedia anymore. Tomer T 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Iraqis would be more offended that you think they are the same thing as Iranians. -Fcb981 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm already offended as an Iranian that you think they are the same. (joking) Well now seriously, Iraq was a part of Iran before but not now. They are different nations now so don't confuse them. --Arad 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm trying to defend Iranians by showing this image and the problems they had in those times, which is good for people to see on main page. --Arad 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My fault. Arad, I think that the picture's presence on the main page wouldn't really make any Iranian happy. Tomer T 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Well, those who are intelligent enough with enough knowledge will see the image and think that racism is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would take the image as "Yes it's a good idea to deport Iranians". At least I hope people will not think about it like this. Do you? --Arad 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope too, but who knows? (: Tomer T 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You convinced me, but I'm not totally excited of making this picture a FP, so I'm now neutral. Tomer T 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support - does the sign have something else written on the other side? It looks like "release all americans now" - which is a bit distractiing. Apart from that, great image — Jack · talk · 15:33, Friday, 9 March 2007
 * Weak support - Support only because of enc relevance, quality is quite poor. Historical or journalistic documents may indeed be considered offensive specially when the events are relatively recent. However that fact should not affect their scientific value or prevent anyone to use or disseminate them. This is of course, the opinion of someone who believes in the freedom of expression, an important value of the western democratic societies. But the scope of Wikipedia is much larger than that, I know... - Alvesgaspar 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Alvesgaspar, as long as the image is contextualized in a proper historical prospective, denying it FP status because it might offend is against the NPOV policy. --Cody.Pope 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I really don't see any reason why an Iranian person should be offended by seeing this as a featured picture. It's not like Wikipedia supports racist behaviour by promoting this image. -Wutschwlllm 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By putting this on the main page it will likely give many people the (hopefully mistaken) impression that Wikipedia does support racism. Already Wikipedia is dominated by American viewpoints, and US-Iran relations are currently at their lowest point since the crisis. Note that Iran was one of the three countries of George Dubya's so called "Axis of evil", and Iranians are currently treated with suspicion in the US, generally requiring additional checks at airports, etc. —Pengo 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I cite policy, the fact that the image can be seen as offensive is not enough to negate it's use or deny it FC status.  If on the main page, the caption should clearly state it's historic context -- if it does in NPOV way, it should be allowed. --Cody.Pope 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm completely with Cody.Pope on this one. In my opinion, this is really ridiculous. Let's just say this image of Adolf Hitler gets promoted and it appears on Wikipedia's main page, does this make Wikipedia a neo-nazi club, or what? This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform, and I hate (unnecessary) self-censorship, just because of some weird opinions on political correctness.
 * "Note that Iran was one of the three countries of George Dubya's so called "Axis of evil", and Iranians are currently treated with suspicion in the US, generally requiring additional checks at airports, etc." I know exactly what you mean. Since I watch Al Jazeera English I hate all the American news channels. Even CNN (I don't really need to mention Fox News) is so biased, they don't even invite Iranians to contribute to discussions (what Al Jazeera does, by the way). The bottom line is, I detest this sort of self censorship. -Wutschwlllm 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could give it FP status but not put it on the Main Page?--HereToHelp 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hesitate, since that seems only to confirm that wikipedia is censored by saying this significant image is important but too offensive to be displayed. At least from an ideological stand point that seems far worse to me.  --Cody.Pope 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I would like to see here what the caption for the PotD should be. ~ trialsanderrors 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated the image and I'm Iranian. I wanted it to be on the homepage to show that how people could be so ignorant and racist against other nationalities. I hope people will take it in a good way, not that racism is good or that we are promoting it. If you guys think it's offensive to Iranians, then I would prefer a withdrawal. But I thought in this situation that Iran has currently with this Bush vs. Mullahs thing, it's a good time to show the image. I hope the captioning will be informative and not provocative. It wasn't Iranian people's fault that the hostage crisis happened. It was the government and I want the world to know that it still the same. It's not Iranian people's fault that their dictator government supports terrorism. They are trying their best to overthrow the government. But it's not easy. --Arad 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a news picture, and as such a witness to history. The image itself isn't POV, but it can be interpreted as such, in two ways: 1. As offensive to Iranians, and 2. As offensive to Americans. That's the essence of prejudice, to project the bad behavior of a subgroup onto the group as a whole. I don't think we should reject it based on its sensitive nature, but we should be careful in the way we put it in context. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment & Question As far as pictures portraying racist sentiments go, this one is even worse. My question here is really whether this image presents a historic occasion or is historic by itself. I don't remember this one being used, but then again I was twelve when the hostage affair happened. ~ trialsanderrors 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even born when it happened. I'm going to bring some Iranians and to get their opinion. --Arad 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral Tomer T 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion regarding censorship is silly in my opinion.  In the lynching article there is an actual picture of lynching with a teenage boy hanging from a tree.  It shows the horror of the situation in a way text could not.  In an article on the Iranian hostage situation how can one justify not having a picture showing how some Americans felt during that time?  How could anyone interpret this photo as a Wikipedia endorsement of Iranian deportation?  The caption should be written carefully so as not to paint all Americans with the sentiments shown in the photo.  This situation is not unique on Wikipedia and has been handled many times.  I don't understand the furor in this case.Meniscus 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no furor. This is a perfectly valid discussion that should be held before the picture goes up on the front page. Try to be more civil please. ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with trialsanderrors. We're just having a "friendly", not "furor" discussion here about this matter to get a positive result out of it. --Arad 02:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the moment. I like the image a lot and am willing to support it, but I would like to see a solid description (providing that context others have demanded) on the image page before I cast my !vote.  A good extended caption is one of the featured picture criteria, and one that we have been letting slide for too long, especially on historical photographs.  --ragesoss 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Temporary oppose per ragesoss, I also like to see evidence that this picture is historic. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | Amended, see below. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original (neutral edit, I think it loses some sharpness, harder to see man's features), nice image of important times. While this even in itself is probably not of great importance the hostage crisis is and this seems to be a good picture.  Why?  1) it's from 5 days after the start of the crisis. 2) It's from MST. U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection.  Notable even from a notable magazine plus high quality image.  It seems to work for me, although knowing more specifics wouldn't hurt. gren グレン 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Obviously its a historic photograph! It is even located in the US govt archives: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/09800/09800r.jpg which if you go here: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/09800/ you will find tons of other historic images from that time period. I don't have time to dig there, but assuredly there is a description somewhere on that website. Furthermore this image is of strong importance (strongly disagree with Grenavitar above) as this is one of the very few clear instances of anti-Iranian racism in the US. Usually in the Diaspora Iranians, mostly due to widespread secular background and easy assimilation into the wider culture, cannot be distinguished from the rest of the populace and thus do not suffer attacks the way has happened with non-secular Muslim Arabs, Indians, and Pakistanis. Even after 9/11, how many reports do we find of racist attacks against Iranians? Most Americans couldn't tell an Iranian if one were staring them in the face, unless the Iranian was dark-skinned or wearing some kind of Islamic dress and then the American would not be thinking "Iranian" but "Muslim" and if he were racist, the American would think something even more ignorant such as "camel jockey." So in that case the bigotry is against the religion, and not the ethnicity since he is unaware and thinks that "Muslim" is a race! And also when Iran has been attacked in recent times, it has not been of a necessarily racist character but against the country and government. So clearly racism against Iranians in the US is a rare phenomenon, and even rarer is masses of Americans calling Iranians "camel jockeys" and demanding that we be deported. For this reason there is no question that the picture is notable and evidence of a rare and ugly historic phenomenon, which unfortunately may resurface due to the ignorants who continue running Iran and give these type of bigots an excuse. Khorshid 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The front page for the collection is here. There are 1.2 million pictures in the collection, donated by U.S. News & World Report, and the fact that the collection is owned by the LoC now doesn't make all of them historical. It's very likely that most of them were never even used. "Historical" in this context means that it is a picture viewers would recognize as an iconic represeentation of that particular event, like Migrant Mother or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. ~ trialsanderrors 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say is that the hostage crisis does not have one single iconic image that should be featured as does the Battle of Iwo Jima. The same clearly goes for anti-Iranian sentiment.  Not being the important image does not make it unimportant or unfeaturable. (I hadn't read Trial's above when I wrote this) gren グレン 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously historical photograph of great significance, also very troubling and thought-provoking. Definately FP material, and I agree- I detest wiki censorship due to political correctness. --⁪froth T 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please specify Guys please indicate which version you like the most. The edit or original. Thanks a lot for all the votes. --Arad 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm looking through Google image search to find historicl images of the crisis, and it seems to me these pictures of the crisis are more iconic, at least in the English-speaking media: 1, 2, 3. The question is really if (assuming free licanse and quality photo) we would be prepared to feature picture #1 on the front page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It would be nice to have a better description though; I wasn't able to find any more information on the LOC site, so I'm not sure more information is available. Basar 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support with caption (edit 1) Excellent photo and extremely historical. As others have said, iconic. I would like to see an extended caption, if possible. On the issue of contect, which I think should not affect its featured status: sure, it depicts American racism, and I think that is reason enough to feature it so that we don't forget the past. --Asiir 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Mardavich 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It means a lot and deserves promotion.(Edit 1) Sangak  Talk 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I'll stay out of the whole racism debate. Either way its a great picture that demonstrates an important historic event. RyGuy17 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Switched to Oppose. The picture, which depicts at best a footnote to the Iran hostage crisis, fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. For one, no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the image itself is historic and has even been used in news article. In fact, it doesn't seem to be used at all outside Wikipedia. It elevates a reprehensible response to the crisis to a widespread response without any evidence that this sentiment was held by more than a small minority. (On the more prevalent response to the crisis, see loc.gov). In simple terms, it tries to shift culpability. On the artistic/technical merit, clearly the picture wouldn't even be considered if the sign said "Oppose Measure 16". ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that probably wasn't the most widespread response but it does an excellent job of conveying the extreme tension felt in the united states over the crisis.. there was a lot of fear and hatred flying around --⁪frotht 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but are we documenting this as it was covered by authorative sources or are we creating a reality for ourselves? Looking around on Google image search, I find many striking contemporary images, blindfolded hostages, the ill-fated rescue effort, yellow ribbons, the jubilant return. Between the two policies no censorship and no soapboxing we can only make sure this falls under the former and not the latter by showing that this is a historical relevant photograph or shows a historical relevant scene, as determined by authorative sources. I don't see anything like this here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly and obviously notable and deserving of FP status as so many fine contributors here have demonstrated. To above user, please see WP:AGF. Your unfortunate comment comes across as a strongly bad faith and provocative insinuation. Please have some respect for others. metaspheres 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You yourself might want to read the full discussion here before making ill-considered bad faith acusations. I have no doubt that Arad offered the picture in good faith. It still fails both core policies for lack of evidence against the problems I pointed out. ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose-how is this featured quality? Don't get me wrong, it is good though, just not FP qualityPenubag 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
 * Comment. In case anyone's curious you can see the ink on the other side of the sign.. check out the pic --⁪frotht 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - an excellent illustration of the anti-Iranian feeling. Warofdreams talk 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think I'm qualified to weigh-in on the image quality or the historical status of the picture. But I do not believe it's racist to document racism, as long as it's done carefully and the context is clear.  In fact, I think it's quite necessary to document it so that it doesn't get whitewashed.  I realize I probably haven't put any arguments to rest, I just felt like contributing my two cents on the matter. --Paul 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * support a good illustration of reactionary behavior in America. "ReLease" Americans? I didn't know we could be rented in the first place. Debivort 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * lol. Good one. --Arad 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually like that, it's not my mistake but his! --⁪frotht 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah we know. It's pretty a funny mistake. --Arad 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose A racist guy holding a sign, not a particularly notable event, and the aesthetics aren't so great either. Spebudmak 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support My support gets stronger day by day. In my opinion it's not necessarily important if the image itself was important at the time it was taken, but just how it portrays a subject matter, like racism and how some people react completely irrationally (because it is irrational to "deport all Iranians", just because of the hostage crisis). -Wutschwlllm 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support i don't think that making this picture a FP means wikipedia supports racism. i'm jewish but if there was a really good picture of a death camp (from WW2) i would support it -Nelro 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent picture. --208.67.142.225 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I forgot to log in. --Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm suprised to see so many here describing this photo as a depiction of racism. Call it bigotry, prejudice, extremism, nationalism, jingoism, ignorance, xenophobia, isolationism, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc., but it doesn't seem to qualify as racism per se. With respect to all, the sign is rather specific in attacking members of a particular nationality, not a race. Please, no flames - I'm no apologist, but prefer precision in language. It's harder to denounce unethical behavior if we can't properly describe it. -Tobogganoggin talk 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Same thing. Big deal. Prejudice we may call it then? Because Iran is made out of many ethinics, then it is in a way racism. It's racism to Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Parths, etc,etc. and all who live in Iran. That is in my opinion. --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think we should have a PotD caption before we close this discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) strong oppose, first I am Iranian and may have some kind of "conflict of interest" here. (me myself don't think so, but I am OK if you uncount my vote). let me frank, I don't see any good reason for seeing this Pic in the first page of Wikipedia; It may be offensive to some people, If you accept that it may be offensive, please stop this voting. regards,--Pejman47 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support Edit#1 Great picture, great imagery, classic. We need such a picture for Wikipedia, especially because of current events. No whitewashing, show the truth. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: im concerned if we promote this, whether people will see Wikipedia as promoting racism and anti-Iranian sentiments. Just a thought however. Ahadland 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Controversial, uncomfortable, and regrettable images bring the most attention to cultural mistakes such as this one. Do not place blinders on society to accommodate the easily offended - one sometimes must to see the needless hate of yesterday to understand the needless hate of today. - --Forzan 04:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't know who this guy is, where the protest was (one might assume it's the Iranian embassy, but it's best not to assume these things), how massive was the protest, how much coverage this guy got, etc. In short, it's lacking a good extended caption that explains the facts around this picture. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who are reading into it and applying their own assumptions. Now I don't think we need a POTD caption per se, just something that gives us more context.  howcheng  {chat} 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original &mdash; This isn't a racist photo; this photo shows racism. There is a huge difference between these two things -- that is why this image gets my support. I've looked for information on this photo or this particular protest, but the closest thing I came across was a Nov 12, 1979 Washington Post article, which I don't have access to. So, I don't know if we'll be able to find the exact location of this protest, but it is really irrelevant, as the purpose of this photo is to illustrate anti-Iranian sentiments during the Iran hostage crisis, not to discuss a particular protest. I also added a couple of different captions, maybe they'll sway you naysayers. ♠ SG →Talk 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Absent evidence that the picture is historic or shows a historic event this is still pushing an angle of the crisis that is, in comparison to others, fairly minor. Pictures of the blindfolded hostages and the downed aircrafts went around the world. This one, from all the silence by the support voters, went nowhere. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The caption is well-done as far as it goes, but reveals the lack of much specific significance for the photo, and much specific knowledge about the photo's context.--ragesoss 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Depicting racism is not a bad thing to do, but as trialsanderrors pointed out there is little evidence that this photo is historically significant. Most political protests have their share of signs written by whackjobs. If we were writers of a newspaper article or a history textbook, we would choose to depict a slogan representing the typical sentiments of the crowd, not the nuttiest slogan in sight. Kla'quot 07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the historical context was indeed very significant. That particular time in history was also important in development of Islamic fundamentalism and it's relationship to the West and America. This picture a great example to show how all of a sudden two allied nations suddenly became enemies --Rayis 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above 8thstar 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not censored make this fair game for the main page, and Main-Page-ability is not a WP:FP criteria anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

+27/-8 Neutral 2 --HadzTalk 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)