Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/1997kB

Challenger photo
I'm not convinced that having watched it unfold in real-time is a reasonable prerequisite for recognizing it's no good when people get blown up in mid-air. If the defense is, "I hadn't been born yet so it doesn't count as a tragedy," then that's pretty weak. On the other hand, no-one thinks twice about invoking the sinking of the Titanic, which killed a couple orders of magnitude more people, to illustrate a point... –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I’ve seen the exact picture being criticized used in academic and maybe conference PowerPoints to make a point. To me, it’s historical and we use historical images of people dying all the time (think the Hindenburg, Hiroshima, etc.) You can argue that those are in bad taste too, but it happens. As I said, I get it now that it’s been raised, but it would never have struck me as offensive. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider it most likely that 1997kB just wanted a striking stock photo of a big explosion, and that's certainly what it is. Given that, it's peculiar but almost certainly not malicious, and I wouldn't oppose over it, even in part. I would prefer to see it replaced with something else, when he has a chance; while historical disasters invariably become less shocking with time, 1986 is still fairly fresh in that regard. It's a whole lot more likely that 1997kB's talk page would be found by someone personally connected to Challenger than to, say, Hindenburg. Regardless, I'm hopeful the issue will get addressed soon before being allowed to overshadow in anyone's view the candidate's many achievements and qualifications. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll agree generally, but what I was trying to get at above is that Challenger is already moving into the realm of stock photos, and I can recall it’s use as such off-wiki in multiple contexts. I get why people who were impacted by it might be shocked, but that’s not a reflection on someone else’s maturity. That’s people from different ages and geographical contexts not having the same shared experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Challenger vs. Titanic (or Hindenburg), is a very good comparison of the issue here. For example, by my reckoning  (model RfA), would have been born long-after this disaster as well; we need to be mindful that people are of very different ages here, and not to hold it against them in these kind of incidents. Britishfinance (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the generally-accepted rule is you don't make fun of or otherwise appropriate tragedies that happened within living memory. Not your particular lifespan, but the lifespan of anyone alive, i.e., about 80–100 years. That's why "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" is a funny joke but "Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was the parade?" makes you wrinkle your nose. We're still some years away from normalizing Holocaust jokes, but Titanic and Hindenburg are now OK. Challenger, not so much. Don't replace that picture with one of 9/11, either. – Levivich 23:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Leviv's rule is the one I've heard and used myself. Fellow Brits seem to play it a little more...bluntly, but that's in a purely social space, and while I'm firmly of the viewpoint that Wikipedia should not run on work codes, an admin would have to deal with unhappy people and avoiding potentially crass aspects can be beneficial. Like I said in my !vote, unlike some I don't think it makes him immature, just a thought on usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)