Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mochida Family by Dorothea Lange

Mochida Family by Dorothea Lange
Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017  at 20:12:06 (UTC)
 * Reason:Photo illustrates Internment of Japanese Americans in 1942, by documentary photographer Dorothea Lange known for her work in this subject, restored.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Internment of Japanese Americans, American Civil Liberties Union
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/USA History
 * Creator:Dorothea Lange, restored by Bammesk


 * Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Which Eden? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Township --Janke | Talk 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The original source identifies this as being taken in Hayward, California, so presumably in the former Eden Township in Almeda County, parts of which were later incorporated into Hayward. (Not sure why the location has been left out of the caption here.)  TSP (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I added the photo's location to the caption. At one time Eden Township referred to the greater Hayward area . The area has a Japanese-American community, . Bammesk (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now, with location identified. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * comment The problem here is that the image is not particularly prominant in either article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is as prominent as any infobox image. It has been stable for 9 years shows the entire family, luggage, tags, used by reliable sources including Encyclopedia Britannica to illustrate what happened,, , . Besides, prominence isn't a criteria, EV is. It has as much EV as our other FPs: , , . Bammesk (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Good restoration. As Bamm says, infobox images are not the only images we promote; EV is what we look at, and this image has plenty of it (as evident from its stability here and widespread use on other websites). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for the details. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Historical. But wait, werent they deported and not evacuated...? --PetarM (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I dont see any difference betwen Ošvejcin, Jasenovac and this. Evacuated ?! They didnt went to picnic maybe ? What kind of Evacuation was this ? --PetarM (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction can be drawn - hundreds of thousands were killed at Jasenovac, I don't think anyone is saying they were at the American camps. But, yes, the caption is distinctly whitewashy - "evacuees", "housed" - in our article we use terms like "internment", "forced relocation", "incarceration", it would probably be better for the caption to more closely follow the article in this rather than use the National Archives caption unaltered; unless we specifically mark the caption itself as a historic artefact. (But that doesn't alter the merits of the photograph.)  TSP (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the last sentence from the nom's caption (that sentence was never in article's caption). The word "evacuation" is used in many sources, it refers to one phase of what happened, so I left it be, for instance, (title),  (table of content). Obviously all sources describe what happened as the incarceration that it was. Bammesk (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the caption actually is by the US National Archives - it's marked "original caption" on the archives pages so I believe is the original caption from 1942. "Evacuation" is used in some modern sources, but few of them use it exclusively - it seems to appears mostly in constructions like "evacuation and internment"; whereas this caption exclusively uses these terms.  I'd suggest we either keep the whole caption intact and put it in quotes, marked as "original caption", as an explicit part of the history alongside the photo (ideally with some commentary on how those events are now viewed, but space may not allow that); or rewrite completely into terms more similar to our article text.  A compromise seems in danger of putting outdated views into the voice of Wikipedia.  TSP (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The caption should be rewritten and this 2006 article (I know it's an excerpt, but we're not trying to cite it here.) on the family may help.--Carwil (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, pending rewrite --Carwil (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)