Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nazi campaign poster

Nazi campaign poster

 * Reason:Possibly the most offensive featured content candidate we could run, but highly encyclopedic. Restored version of File:Vote number 1.jpg.  Uploaded locally (where admins tend to be draconian about deleting images that aren't used in article space); will supply a smaller courtesy version upon request.
 * Articles this image appears in:Nazi Party, Early timeline of Nazism, Adolf Hitler's rise to power
 * Creator:Rehse-Archiv für Zeitgeschichte und Publizistik


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind being more specific as to why this isn't at Commons? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the template (Do not move to Commons) on the image page says, the image is PD in the US but not in its country of origin, therefore it cannot be hosted on Commons. I would have asked this question had I not seen the template :). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks a bit faded towards the top. Kaldari (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uploaded new version. The edit isn't much different so it's under the same filename.  Durova Charge! 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment-The poster itself is not offensive-there is no distasteful imagery or Nazi symbols.In fact as Nazi posters go,it's a fairly subdued one.Whilst I appreciate the historical background is deeply disturbing,it's necessary(if somewhat difficult) to consider just the picture itself,regardless of our personal views on its subject. Lemon martini (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a Nazi symbol - the digit 1 is standing on top of a swastika. [[Image:Nazi Swastika.svg|20px]] —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's there, but it could be used much more distastefully. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because an image is offensive to you personally doesn't make it any less historically important or of any lower quality. We cannot let personal feelings inform our opinions on whether this is a significant, quality image - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wadester doesn't seem to be calling it personally offensive, or opposing it. Fwiw what bothers me more than many other Nazi images is that it actually is a technically meritorious example of graphic design.  It puts a public face on a repulsive bit of history and almost makes it palatable.  The Nazis were media-savvy (they had to be good at something in order to rise to power), and this is an example of why not to place uncritical trust a well-packaged media appeal.  Durova Charge! 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support For EV --Muhammad (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite Support Great EV, good restoration. This isn't really that offensive, but either way we don't censor and this is real history. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - on grounds of reasonable quality but fantastic EV. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support this is so detailed and the colours are so strong. This is excellent - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Über support (pun intended). However I have a question: the original seems to have some black borders around it, shouldn't they have been kept? Diego_pmc  Talk 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon a closer look I decided to hold my support for the moment. The top of the "1" and the a few parts of the swastika have some pretty annoying white stripes (see image to the left). Are they the result of the restoration process? If so, I think it would be better if they were removed. Diego_pmc  Talk 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No white stripes were visible on my monitor at 100% resolution. What resolution did you see stripes?  And what orientation did the stripes have?  The original artwork did have some uneven patches in black on the number, most of which appeared to have been segments where black ink had been applied slightly unevenly.  If that isn't what you're referring to (and it doesn't seem to be) then I'm a little confused; maybe it's a monitor issue?  Durova Charge! 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My resolution is 1280x1024. I don't know if they are more obvious because of my monitor, but I can see them quite clearly. But they're surely from the image, they're not the type of things that could result from a misconfiguration of the monitor. They're more like patches of color that are wither than the rest of the color around them, not stripes. It's most visible in the lower corner of the arm of the swastika from center of the image (the one closest to the viewer). Diego_pmc Talk 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean less black? That might be the uneven ink distribution.  I'll get to work on that. :)  Durova Charge! 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They do appear to be in the original, if not so obvious - they appear to be small wrinkles in the paper combined with some printing artefacts. I'm kind of neutral about this restoration, though: I'd kind of prefer a little more of the original's lightly-aged paper tone, rather than pure white. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suspended pending this. MER-C 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Great EV. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 04:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose adds little to the articles it's present in in terms of illuminating the text, "list 1" mentioned in the caption isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the articles and the the large "1" is the main focus of the poster's design. Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * List 1 refers to the placement of the party's candidates on a ballot. Ballot format itself is rarely important enough to discuss in article text, unless it's the Palm Beach County, Florida butterfly ballot of the 2000 elections.  What this image demonstrates is part of how the Nazis gained power: by presenting a simple mnemonic in a visually compelling manner to make it as easy as possible for voters to remember and support them.  Durova Charge! 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be discussed in the articles either, if it was and this poster was shown to be a good example of the phenomenon I would probably support. Sorry for the list 1 confusion I think I misread "at" as "and". Guest9999 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it verges on OR to express that much. With most campaign posters relevance is implied in an article that discusses an election or a political career (two posters from the US presidential election of 1864 are recent examples).  At Adolf Hitler's rise to power this replaced a fair use image that had been stable at the article for some time.  Durova Charge! 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Very interesting, small issues as seen above, but overall positive Kennedy  ( talk ) 09:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Have uploaded proposed changes over the existing file. Although it's possible to go even farther, there's a line to be drawn between restoring old graphic art and improving upon the original.  It really wouldn't be right to make Nazi propaganda look better than it actually was.  Durova Charge! 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsuspended. Returning to nomination list for a quick check that nothing went wrong. :) MER-C 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)