Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Flares over Fort Lee - Best Warrior 2010.jpg

Flares over Fort Lee[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 08:13:38 (UTC)

Reason: Good lighting I think
Articles in which this image appears: Military simulation
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator: Spc. Venessa Hernandez

Support as nominator --Marcus Qwertyus 08:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I guess I'll knock up an article for Best Warrior later today. Marcus Qwertyus 09:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If only because this image isn't in any article, so I can't look and see what EV it has. It might be a fantastic representation of its topic, but without an article, I'm not sure. The image itself is nice, but there are some things that are a bit distracting, which might be forgivable in context, but again, no article. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Pure propaganda, leading to killed innocent people and in support of the weapons lobby. Not representable at the mainpage. --Niabot (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{[citation needed]}-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Choose any adequate book about German history. --Niabot (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colt is an American company. Marcus Qwertyus 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not in use in any articles and it is not clear where it would be useful anyway. J Milburn (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it has now been added to an article, I really don't see what it's adding to that article. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But only due to it not being used in any articles. Can I ask you, Niabot, on which of the criteria are you basing your oppose? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure propaganda, showing a nice view of war instead of the ugly truth doesn't need to featured. --Niabot (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're going for 6: "Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments."? It's probably worth mentioning, that the caption (that is the words under the image) clearly states that it's not a photo of war, but rather of the Best Warrior competition... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, based on the caption, it's not from war, but from a training test. I would hardly say it gives War a pretty view anyway, does it need to have bloodied bodies scattered all over the ground to give an accurate depiction? EDIT: And it seems Aaadddaaammm said the first bit already. I really should read what was written in edit conflicts.Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not from a war, but it glorifies it with is posture the nice view over a war scenario. This is the definition of propaganda that is done trough media like Wikipedia and other pages. Great that we support with such "nice" images the recruiting of so far innocent children, bending their imagination and leading them to real wars in the future. If there is anything good about this, then try to put some good arguments on the table. --Niabot (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, noone is supporting it so far... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep getting into edit conflicts with Aaadddaaammm, he's just much quicker at typing I guess. An image of War that depicts War the way you see it Niabot (And I agree with your P.O.V. of war) so as to influence people's views of War in the negative would be equally propaganda. I don't think it's a fair reason to oppose it. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A picture made by the US-Army which is making the most profit out of such kind of imagery is not influencing and sourced one sided? Why does the US-Army create such pictures anyways? Are they to study tactics, being at the best spot to get hit? Or are they to show how nice it is to be inside the army and participate in this death machine? --Niabot (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not the place for debating the politics of war, guys. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume that this is the right place, since discussions and votings are basically about suitability for the mainpage and not the image itself. --Niabot (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Didn't think I was getting into one, just stating I don't think his reasoning for opposition is all that fair. In terms of what it is showing, a training match, I don't see how it is in anyway inaccurate in depicting its subject matter. I'll leave it at that, hopefully clearing up the point I was trying to make. And I think I'll leave it at that, to stop it potentially getting too off topic, and as I've not once been able to edit without getting into an edit conflict (though I agree with what Niabot just said, the anime image further down seems to be getting even more off topic and onto these things). Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A training match depicted like an actual war scene, with same lighting as usual for video games. I don't see anything about training inside this picture. Actually it shows one soldier at a very open place under unrealistic conditions. At least they have done anything to make this picture look cool for kids. Nice work of propaganda. Maybe it should be included inside this article. Then it would be in the right context. --Niabot (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no EV, propaganda --– Wladyslaw (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously in the minority here, but I think I could wrap my head around a support for this being in kneeling position. Cowtowner (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I would support on a technical level, but as others have commented, it is not represent any topic that we have an article on. I'm unfamiliar with military terminology, but would this be illustrative of Military simulation? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it would be still propaganda from the US army. --Niabot (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not willing to entertain any political arguments for or against any picture. I am interested in finding out if it meets WP:WIAFP. I have been bold and added it to the military simulation article, and will throw my Support behind it.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no idea how come everybody is getting so into this discussion. It may not have any EV whatsoever, but it still if a fantastic and beautiful picture. Thus, it earns my support.[User:Pteronura brasiliensis|User:Pteronura brasiliensis]] (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No new votes can be added now, but I'll just point out that my oppose was on the basis that it wasn't in an article, which it now is, so if you want to count it as a support it is. If this is considered too late to point that out, than an oppose it stays. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]