Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards

edit
 
A set of playing cards released by the United States Department of Defense. The cards depict high-ranking officials of Saddam Hussein's government who the United States sought to capture in the Iraq war.
Reason
Its a high-quality, high resolution picture of a list of all of the most important officials of Saddam Hussein's regime. I think that this image is very encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in
Most wanted Iraqi playing cards, Taha Yassin Ramadan U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis and Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti
Creator
United States Department of Defense
Nominator
Ahadland
  • Support, and before someone brings up the possible legal argument, the Jokers are trademarked, not copyrighted. I think that means it's FP-legal. --Golbez 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • emphatic oppose propaganda is by its very nature POV. If This nom was rejected on those grounds, so too must this one. Debivort 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the word "propaganda" appears nowhere in that link, I fail to see how your WP:POINT oppose is relevant. --Golbez 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point of WP:POINT. Propaganda is grounds to oppose, and even if it were misapplied here (on which I have no opinion) it has nothing to with disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please be more careful in your accusations. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which part of the FP guidelines says propaganda can't be a featured picture? --Golbez 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which part of the FP guidelines says propaganda can't be a featured picture? — Irrelevant. WP:POINT refers to disruptive actions taken in order to amplify ones viewpoint. If Debivort starts nominating 20 ugly propaganda pictures because he's unhappy with the way the discussion here is proceeding it's WP:POINT. Offering his interpretation of the criteria is not WP:POINT, even if it is outside the consensus opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose the clause was slightly eliptical. It was rejected because the illustrated article was POV, not because anyone called it propaganda. That said, I feel the Pastafarian image is certainly anti-religious propaganda. See my enumerated point below if you still don't understand my point. Debivort 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Complete and utter rubbish propaganda is defined as "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid". This isn't attempting to influence anybody's opinion it is merely informing people of who the USA wishes to capture.82.36.182.217 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was this a civil comment 82.36.182.217? Now, just to be clear: I believe that an image should be eligible (and not considered POV) as long as it illustrates its article neutrally. Others (a majority of people voting in the past) have indicated that an image is ineligible if it illustrates an article that is inherently POV, regardless of whether it illustrates it neutrally or not. I have accepted this consensus, and my current vote here reflects that. So, let's reason it out: 1) This image very neutrally illustrates Most wanted Iraqi playing cards. 2) The topic Most wanted Iraqi playing cards is inherently POV because it is the American Defense Department's subjective evaluation of who were bad guys in Iraq. 3) Therefore: if we allow illustrations associated only with NPOV articles, this is ineligible. However, if consensus has changed, and NPOV illustrations of POV articles (such as this one) are eligible, then I will change my vote, and renominate Touched by His Noodly Appendage which illustrates the POV article parody religion in an NPOV way. Cheers. Debivort 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it was a civil comment, I apologize if it came off as otherwise. I think if an image is POV it should be no grounds to oppose. Anyway I hope you do change your vote :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs).
"utter rubbish" is civil, well ok... You haven't really explained your opinion in the context of my argument. I'm guessing you think an image that illustrates a POV article in an NPOV way is OK (I agreed in the past but am yielding to consensus here). Do you also think that an image which illustrates an article in a POV way is OK? I.e. could the Flying spaghetti monster be used to illustrate Christianity? Lastly, please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~. Debivort 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be completely fair I could have said complete and utter shit, or some other profanity. I completely agree with your Flying Spaghetti Monster pic. Ill support yours if yo support mine :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs).
  • Well to be honest you opposed for no valid reason who cares about POV. If POV is not listed as a reason to oppose a featured article candidate dont oppose it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs).
  • Sighh. You seem to be ignoring the rest of the comments and questions I left. I even asked you about them directly 6 bullet points ago, with no reply. My patience for trying to explain my relatively simple point has evaporated, so unless you start adressing my points, don't expect much more energetic participation in this discussion from me, if any. Debivort 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of the actual photos are very poor quality. Fully 25% of the playing cards have no image at all. The DoD watermark is unnecessary. Chicago god 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is no reason to deny FP status, I have the actual playing cards in my home and the quality on those pictures is the same as on this picture. The reason being some of the suspects were very hard to photograph. The watermark is relevant because it tells you who published it and suggests a reason why they were taken, i.e. the us government took it to inform people who the "enemy" was.Ahadland 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chicago, I think you have completely misunderstood this poster, It has been issued by the US Government and has NOT been created by the nominator Ahadland. So the missing pics, the low quality of some of them and the watermark are simply features of the poster itself - Adrian Pingstone 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the idividual faces are really poor quality, plus it doesn't catch the eye -Nelro 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Debivort, at least until Touched by His Noodly Appendage is accepted as FP. highlunder 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why the big discussion about NPOV? I know it's an important topic, but let's talk about that some other day on WT:FPC. This image should be rejected based on quality alone. Half the faces have really bad artifacts, none of the borders line up with the other cards, and to be quite frank, it looks like a school project. tiZom(2¢) 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tomtheman5 - very poorly executed... they could at least have lined up the edges of the cards and got the border thicknesses consistent. --YFB ¿ 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with above. The Quality alone is very bad. It really does look like a school project. Even worst. Even though I hate all these people (on the cards) it's still not a good idea to put their faces on cards as if they are some sort of game or something. This whole thing could be done much much better with better images. --Arad 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You know, this technically might be counted as a fair use image under Wikipedia rules. It's unlikely that the DOD is the owner of any of the head shots themselves. Although Iraq and the US do not have a copyright treaty, Jimbo has stated that we should still honor Iraqi copyrights (although I can't seem to find that link right now). howcheng {chat} 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it wasn't fair use it would have been deleted
  • Oppose --Mad Max 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose No doubt some copyvios in the photographs, low quality, arguably POV-laden. Noclip 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like the watermark. I would prefer to support an actual photograph of the actual playing card set (assuming the quality was good enough) rather than this image which looks like it was made in PowerPoint or something like that. Perhaps a real photograph, with just two or three of the cards, so that in thumbnail, some detail could be seen? Spebudmak 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for quality of the collage. I don't mind the pixelated images of the Iraqis because I think they were that way on the printed cards as well. But, the differing border heights and widths is something that should be done correctly. Also, I see no reason for the logo (although, that's less important if it weren't pixelated). I would support a version that thixed this. I really don't understand the NPOV arguments. It doesn't matter if it's propaganda if it's noteworthy and well done... and this image represents Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards incredibly well--propaganda or not. gren グレン 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for copyright reasons. This is not a free image; a collage of fair use photos cannot magically become PD.--Pharos 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the argument. The argument is that the government released this set of cards and therefore it's free. But, the government didn't originally take the pictures so, I think it may be possible that they are violating copyright? gren グレン 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that's exactly the same argument. Btw, wasn't the U.S. Government sovereign over Iraq during the time the poster was released? Oppose btw. ~ trialsanderrors 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, the US government has a right to fair use just like everyone else, and fair use is often employed in government documents. It's very important to understand that not everything in US government documents is PD, because many items in these documents are not produced by US government workers — and this is especially true of photos of people the US is trying to capture. I would say it's irrelevant whether or not the US was ever sovereign over Iraq — the US has certainly never made any claim of conquest over Iraqi intellectual property. By the way, I've listed this image as "no source" on Commons, for lack of information about the individual photographs.--Pharos 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Propaganda. Propaganda is inherently POV, and therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Maybe in 20+ years time this can be looked at as an example of propaganda instead of simply being propaganda. Besides which the image is pretty lousy (it would be better if it were a photo of the actual playing cards), and lastly there are possible copyright issues as stated above. —Pengo 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every picture is propaganda --Ahadland 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You clearly don't understand WP:NPOV, Pengo. Our policies clearly permit the use of POV sources unless they reflect the position of a negligible minority. ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria #9. Religious, political, and commercial photos require caution. There's a fine line between describing a POV and promoting it, and the line has a lot to do with timing. Ten years from now a propaganda image from 2003 might be an appropriate FP (unless the war is still on, sigh). But not now. Kla'quot 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Almost every article in this article is propaganda; the argument against this image on those grounds is absolutely absurd. My problem with this image is that in any scaled form (in an article) it's totally unintelligible. Perhaps a high res scan or crop of a few of the cards would be better. Leon 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for aesthetic reasons. At this size, it just doesn't look like anything. Kla'quot 06:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose can only be used under fair use. I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia under a Fair Use claim and deleted the Commons image. As the photographs are not the work of the US Govt, this is not a public domain image. I'd appreciate if people more experienced in writing FU rationales check the image page.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose LOL! I don't mean to insult, because it is a good picture, but it's more of an April Fools' schtick than a real instructional tool, in my opinion. YechielMan 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/US_Government_most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards&oldid=1079398577"