Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nagasaki Explosion

Nagasaki Explosion


This is a historic photo already used by many articles (War, Nuclear weapon, Nuclear warfare, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ...) at a prominent position. It definitely deserves to be an FP due to its historical significance.


 * Nominate and support. - Mikeo 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I'd perfer not to "feature" a picture that represents the killing of 40,000 people and wounding of 25,000. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a historically significant event. The picture is a prominent illustration of the subject. Mikeo 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't either of those, I still strongly oppose. It is not "pleasing to the eye" to me. I also object on moral reasons as well that are out side of the FPC criteria. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "pleasing to the eye" criteria has exceptions for historical images which make your first objection invalid. There is nothing in the criteria that deal with "moral issues", and it's a personal feeling towards the event, which is not what we're supposed to be judging images on. A "moral" objection is no more valid than opposing an image of a bacteria or a maggot because the subject is hideous (if the photo is well executed). -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria reads "be pleasing to the eye". It is not pleasing to my eye, you can say whatever you want, but that is my opinion.-Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The image, if it's real, is very rare and is historically important. Which I think makes it FP. Neutral as I think again it's true, why are we told that if a picture is historically significant then it should be FP? This image has nothing special and the only reason people are voting is because they are told to do so. Arad 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support and am a little surprised to hear opposition based on a moral argument. Perhaps a reconsideration of the wording "pleasing to the eye" in the criteria could be considered for future images. InvictaHOG 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't find it pleasing to the eye. It't not all that special, there are better mushroom cloud images. The "historical" argument doesn't really work for me as there were hundreds of nucular mushroom clouds. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not unique for mushroom cloud, but it's certainly a unique image for the bombing of Nagasaki, a very important historically in its own right. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right about the criteria as it currently stands. I understand that you don't find it pleasing to the eye. A separate discussion will have to be had about any changes to be made to that wording if the community feels the "spirit of the law" is not being adequately conveyed. As it is, I respect your opinion on the matter. InvictaHOG 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely unique, and historically significant (totaly irreplaceable). -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While historically significant, probably not as much as the bombing of Hiroshima.  There are better pictures of bombings, nuclear mushroom clouds, Nagasaki (before & after bombing), nuclear destruction, etc, etc, etc.  Whatever is trying to be "featured" here simply isn't. Chicago god 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as Pharoh Hound said above. Reywas92 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The level of Grain (or is it called noise?- please correct me cuz i'm no good with these technical terms) in the backround is to much for me. Can it be corrected. if it is i will support. By the way: disagreeing (is that spelled right?) is nto a valid reason to oppose I think that particular vote shouldn't be counted.Nnfolz 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This picture is not only an important picture historically (one of the first atomic bombs to be used) but it is also a pretty appealing picture.--midnight_rider 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This is a great historic picture --Luc Viatour 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per ravedave and Redquark. Image doens't have enough 'Nagasaki' or historical context to distinguish as an FP --Vircabutar 07:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support, mainly to offset ravedave. --Golbez 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Where as I agree with ravedave that the killing of 40,000 people prevents this from being "pleasing to the eye", it's that unpleasantness that make this FP-worthy. FPs can't all be flowers and sunsets.--Niro5 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support Despite technical problems with photograph, this is a very important picture. It is precisly that so many people were killed that this is an important photograph. To forget would be a greater violation of morality than to feature it(imo). HighInBC 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Quality of this just isn't enough. If this was the first test explosion or Hiroshima the historical significane would increase enoguh to be a weak support. But as it is, the quality just isn't high enough for me. Don't bother responding saying that historical photos are exempt from quality/size requirements, because I look for a balance in them (as in historical photos must meet lower standards, but still meet them). say1988 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support & Comment. This is the best (detail and proximity) image taken of the bombing. In addition, the photographer was aboard Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped Fat Man. I am highly surprised by the unreasonable comments made by Ravedave. Objections on "moral" reasons will be ignored. No where in FPCriteria does it entail judging an image based on moral fiber. However, images of great and historical images, such as the the image in question, are almost guaranteed entree into FP. Personal emotions and unrelated comments of this kind are not suitable on this page or on Wikipedia as a whole. I highly suggest a closer examination of FPCriteria and all users who boast their personal opinion of the event, instead of the photograph, to restrain from commenting at all. -- AJ24 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Objections on "moral" reasons will be ignored - scary statement in any context. – Outʀiggʀ 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we aren't told by a caption that this is the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, there's no way to tell it apart from any other nuclear explosion.  So I'm not sure where the supposed historical value is.  (For pictures with geniune historical value, see for example  or, which tell us a lot about their eras.)  We should feature more recent, higher-quality pictures of nuclear explosions instead of this. Redquark 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point of historically-important images. It is usually necessary for there to be a caption to explain the content/importance of the image. See any of the other historically-significant FPs (such as the only known photo of Chopin, the first photograph ever, or the map of Lewis and Clark's trail). Those images are all historically important, and it is precisely their captions that convey their importance. This situation is no different. Your claim that high-res, modern photos of atomic bomb explosions are better completely misses the point of historical significance. If an image is trying to be FP based on aesthetics alone, then of course we should judge it on its resolution/clarity. This is not one of those images. We could have an FP of a high-res explosion as well another FP of a historically-significant explosion. There's no limit to the number of FPs on a subject, especially when they illustrate the subject in different ways. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-09-01 03:59Z
 * I'm not missing the point; we just disagree. This criteria seems to me analogous to treasuring some dirt just because a famous person walked on it.  It's just dirt, indistinguishable from any other dirt, but if you mention that the Beatles walked on it, suddenly it's supposed to be special.  From my point of view, if it has no informational value, then it has no historical value.  (Note also: all of the examples you gave convey more information about their unique historical subject than this one does about Nagasaki, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose them.  This picture looks much like any other similarly-sized nuclear explosion.)  All this image illustrates is what a nuclear explosion looks like in general, and therefore one with more color and detail would be superior to it. Redquark 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; i don't think the image has enough 'Nagasaki' or historical context to be an FP--Vircabutar 07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with Redquark. My impression is that many of us can't wait to cast our "Support" vote when we're told that something is "historically important". For idiots like me, who have no idea what is "historically important", the label doesn't mean much, though.--K.C. Tang 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While historically-significant photos are given a lower bar to to meet, there's a big difference between lowering the standard (proportional to the image's historical significance) and totally ignoring aesthetic and technical considerations. I don't believe this image has the historical importance or the informational content (such as some visual indication of a city below) necessary to overcome its technical and aesthetic deficiencies. -- Moondigger 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As for opposition based on "moral" concerns -- people here are asked to give reasons for their oppose votes. Ravedave gave his reasons, though he didn't have to.  He could have just said "Oppose" and left it at that, or could have lied and gave some other reason for his oppose.  We have to remember that ultimately, these are subjective considerations.  If the criteria were totally objective, there would be no need to collect opinions (votes) at all -- somebody with a good understanding of the criteria could simply promote images at will.  Ravedave's vote should count equally. -- Moondigger 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good photo of this event, and not something we want to be repeating to try to get better photos. --jjron 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Well said jjron. --Fir0002 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support I think this picture is FP-worthy. Remember that even though this picture is not nessisarly a happy picture, it is historically significant. Under the critira for a FP picture, it mentions that quality can be sacrificed if the picture is significant. I agree that "FP pictures can't be all sunsets and flowers. bfissa. 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose has historical significance, but as a picture itself there is nothing noteworthy about it. Michaeln36 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I have always found pictures of mushroom clouds striking. PPGMD 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, There are lots of pictures of nuclear explosions, and while this is one of the few of the nagasaki bombing, it doesn't illustrate that event very well because there's nothing to indicate in the image itself what is occuring. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

+13/-11  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)