Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Protest

Protest

Great composition (I like the "reporter" on the right), very representative of the topic; appears in the article protest and is by User:SchuminWeb.

Nominate and support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble adding the {{FPC}} since this is a Commons image. Help? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you Calderwood 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Just doesn't do anything for me, just not intresting and not striking. PPGMD 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK PPGMD Calderwood 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These people look like they're out for a walk in the park. No shouting? No rage? Just pretty posters and designer clothing? A FP on such a topic would probably need to be a historically significant image. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-9 21:01
- I don't think a poster with 'IMPERIAL MOTHER FUCKER' on it counts as 'no rage'. And I don't particularly like the language or the content, so Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lewk_of_Serthic 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What a bunch of pathetic poseurs. I doubt THEY even know what they're protesting. --Deglr6328 06:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sounds deadly! Especially with that man in black in the foreground with a poster saying "Mother Fucker". ^KILO-_LIMA 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per PPGMD Glaurung 07:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just doesn't fit. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Part of that placard is cut off. What kind of motherfuckers is he protesting? Imp motherfuckers? —DO'Neil 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing "imperialist", it has that certain combination of moronic vacuousness and verisimilitude that anti-capitalist/anti-globalization protesters seem to go in for.--Deglr6328 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all of the reasons stated above and those likely to follow. TomStar81 05:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What else could you want from a protest picture? enochlau (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly oppose!. The "mother f**ker" slogan gives readers the message that protests are all vulgar actions with uncivilized words in the slogans. -Alanmak 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just an example of a protest, not the definition of one. I don't think you should oppose an image just because it isn't absolutely definitive for the article. It sounds like you have an agenda. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, so we should all follow government like a servile dogs? And btw protest is a sign of democratic society. - Darwinek 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not say that we should always follow what the government says. Don't put words in my mouth. Protest is a sign of democratic society, and is supposed to be a sign of a civilized society. A protest should aim at expressing the will of the people in a peaceful, rational manner. A picture that simply emphasizes the cursewords on a banner does not demonstrate this important purpose behind a protest. - Alanmak 07:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fresh atmosphere and good composition. - Darwinek 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty poor --Fir0002 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply because I think others are opposing it based on their ideology.--Colle||Talk-- 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have no problems with the protest or the people participating but I feel that these pictures should be clean so that everyone can view them. Ebill
Oppose Simply because I think others are supporting it based on their ideology. ;-) No seriously, blown out highlights, uninspired composition. Just not FP material. --Dschwen 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Primary textual element is cropped, only a few posters are fully seen. If you want to photograph a protest, choose a perspective that gives an idea of the size of the crowd (like this) or portray individual protesters carefully. This very close frontal perspective doesn't work well for crowds (except maybe in orderly protests like this one). As for the "motherfucker" text, it's perfectly fine to show something like this, but we need to be clear what we represent. In the general article protest, we need photos that show the broad range of messages that can be found, and the kind of protest shown here is only one example.
In any case, since protests (and photographs thereof - try Indymedia) are so common, a general protest photo will have to be truly exceptional to gain featured status. This means that it should include some very interesting visual elements like costumes, masks, waving flags, effigies, die-ins, etc. -- or, alternatively, powerful consistent symbolism as in Image:Collectivization-get-rid-of-kulak.jpg. --Eloquence* 12:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would lean towards a more historically significant image when considering a FP. Maybe this photo would be more appropriate for an article on teen rebellion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-22 02:55
oppose I dont mind the swearing on it but the image doesnt hit me with anything other than the fact it says 'mother fucker' Wolfmankurd 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]