Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wochenspruch der NSDAP 11 January 1943

Wochenspruch der NSDAP 11 January 1943

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 10:49:13 (UTC)

Reason: a striking image, high resolution and restored to remove aging damage, with high encyclopedic value in demonstrating the tactics of Nazi propaganda in glamorizing Nazi leaders
Articles in which this image appears: Wochenspruch der NSDAP, Nazi propaganda, Themes in Nazi propaganda
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator: Werner von Axster-Heudtlass, restored and uploaded by Buidhe

Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this passes, it should be listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused given this is literal Nazi propaganda. It's an interesting example of this, given that it depicts the bloated, lazy and incompetent Goring as a fit man of action. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that I can't support this nomination on principle given that it's propaganda for one of the most loathsome regimes in history and an ideology which still commands a following among racists and bigots - this this was to become a FP it could lead to a perception that Wikipedia approves of this kind of ideology. I appreciate that the motivation for improving this image is to illustrate what the highly effective propaganda tactics used by the Nazis looked like, and this is a much less loathsome example of their work than anti-Semitic and similar posters so there is genuine EV. An option for a FP, and I'm not sure how it could be executed, would be an image combining this poster with a photo of what Goring actually looked like at the time to illustrate how ludicrous and manipulative the poster is. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Propaganda art is OK in an article about it, but not for FP. --Janke | Talk 12:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, this fails criterium #3 - this is not among Wikipedia's "best work"... --Janke | Talk 17:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This ~~pathetic~~ preposterous piece of ~~crap~~ propaganda has ~~zero~~ minimal EV for Eng.-lang. readers, and does not belong on the Main Page. Wegwerfen. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagine if you spent hours restoring a historically valuable artwork, only to have it dismissed as a "pathetic piece of crap"? The image is used in three articles, so how does it have "zero EV"? (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've softened my comments above, but as a lifelong student of the rise of Nazism and attendant topics I see scant EV in a blatantly hagiographic, and inept, depiction of one of modern history's most contemptible figures. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, it is also being promoted on the Commons right now, with much more votes in favor. --165.225.207.71 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment enwp has already featured Nazi propaganda images (such as File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg). It is probably too much to expect but that all opposes should be based on featured picture criteria, which doesn't include disapproving of the image or its message. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the best phrasing you could have chosen... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The actual quote is, in context, evidence for the German public knowing about the Holocaust, as well as a reference to it. While Nazi propoganda, this image serves a useful educational purpose in what it admits to. Honestly, I think Sca and Janke aren't considering the value of admissions from Nazis in their propoganda that can be useful for disproving later lies. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note what I said: "Propaganda art is OK in an article about it"... As such, having this image on the front page would not entice viewers to read the article - it lacks the "wow" I expect from all FPs. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am really uneasy about putting Nazi propaganda on Wikipedia's front page. It is certainly educational, but... well, I think we should discuss the text blurb that will accompany this. Is it already drafted? The current caption here will need some changes, for example, we don't list sources/external links like this on the Main Page, do we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Dziękuję. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I wanted it on the main page, actually I support Nick-D's suggestion that it should go on the list of featured images unsuitable for the main page. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FPs are by definition eligible for the MP. If we want ban this prospective FP from the MP, why promote it as an FP at all? – Sca (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is currently a debate [3] (or effort) in the U.S. on removing statues of confederate icons from public parks and squares and placing them in museums (or other suitable places). I think certain statues do belong in museums, not in public squares. I see somewhat of a similarity between that debate and this nom. Should images like this be confined to article space, or should they be given additional visibility outside of article space? My answer is: confined to article space. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Posting images of Nazi bigwigs or other despicable historical characters on the Main Page could be misconstrued as WP support/endorsement of their deeds or blather. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: We do that all the time. Template:POTD/2007-12-14, Template:POTD/2017-01-20 (with a positive spin, no less), Template:POTD/2018-03-22 (watch how it glosses right past that slave ownership!), Template:POTD/2010-04-14. By the way, I'm really annoyed by the middle two, as they're images I did to promote history, that got turned into positive portrayals. I'd suggest that we put this up for a suitably distant day and write the description right away if we do it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 15:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't. Let them read about the topics in the multitudinous relevant articles. (And BTW, Lee wasn't in quite the same class as a Göring or, say, a Dzerzhinsky.) Sca (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Janke --Andrei (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Fine, you got what you wanted—blocked a picture, not because it fails the featered picture criteria, but on purely ideological grounds. Maybe you should nominate all the currently featured Nazi propaganda to be delisted, at least for consistency's sake. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to repeat: Fails criterium #3 - this is not among Wikipedia's "best work"... --Janke | Talk 20:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]