Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 17:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Endangered arctic, starving polar bear
  •  Comment - You have strong opinions about things, which is good as long as they're not ad hominem, but how do you explain this guideline above:
Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
And how do you explain this, at Commons:Image guidelines? Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.
My feeling is that you are completely free to say that educational value is not a sufficient reason to feature photo x, y or z, but saying that educational value is irrelevant is a bridge too far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek you need to ping me to I know that you talked to me... I'm not entering over and over again to check my comments...
Well, "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph."
I already made this statement "A difficult picture don't make it a FP". And... difficult? Difficult image of a polar bear [1] [2]...
another thing see the difference ? [3] away more impactful, just being a better processed picture.
And I'm not saying that is bad, I just saying that he is neglecting knowledge about post production needed in this case. It's a dull and dark picture, that could be corrected, do not try to convince me that is a "style" a "mood".
"to fall short on technical quality" it do not fall short, it falls on purpose, it almost did not passed in QI, and you advocate to pass, and are doing the same here.
He made a drama, a soup opera maneuver to get more attention "oh!! They are so mean to me. I do not deserve this nomination!! Even when a magazine wants my art", and you (plural) catalyse the speech, come on, this about the picture, and after all this talk it's stills bad, and he didn't fix it using this pity speech.
With the same raw file, I would bring a FP, this one, not a QI. VI for the illustration, horrible technically.
Obs:I did not asked for it, was you all vote in a political matter, not see the picture. Would be more waste of time...
Great photographers makes great photos in any condition... Peace. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, would you mind explaining what you mean by "you all vote in a political matter, not see the picture"? Why do you think it's OK to make these kinds of ad hominem remarks? I think that's in bad faith. I don't deny that the examples you give are good, but really, "it falls on purpose"? And really, now, this? "With the same raw file, I would bring a FP, this one, not a QI." User:AWeith is a pretty new user here, as you can see from his contributions. I greatly appreciate his work because it's great and because he takes photos of amazing scenes. I don't know him personally and have no "political" axe to grind either for or against him, but just judge each picture individually. What are you suggesting is taking place? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan why do you care about me?
This not ad hominem as I'm not using this as a argument to support my statement, this just justifying why I'll not make another version of it.
And what's the relation of being new, to the quality of the pictures, or he provides the raw file, or listening other volunteer? I didn't get.
About political votes, just scroll down the FPC page.
x0x0. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, you would have to spell out who you think is voting which way for what political reasons, and what led you to that conclusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral This is one of the rare times a neutral !vote of mine is not of the "oppose as is, but could work if fixed" variety. Here I just can't decide. I think the image would be stronger if cropped in much closer to the bear, since you can't fully appreciate its condition without leaning into it a bit and blowing it up (whereupon it becomes truly horrifying and would be a slam-dunk "strong support" from me).

    But ... at the same time I can see that this is a pretty small image as is, and cropping like that would probably put it well below the minimum for FP (although it would make a great VI). I just ... don't ... know. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been nominated for VI. When I see a small, not too technically perfect pic, I ask myself: Does the pic have the "Buzz Aldrin's bootprint factor?" Meaning, does it symbolize something more than what is just in the picture, is the pic relevant to some significant historical event or change, is this the first look of what is to come, can it be relevant as an eye-opener, etc. I think this has that "factor". cart-Talk 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I was so moved by this image, I created the article Starvation in Persian language and I used this image there. --Gnosis (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination. I concede this photo is of mediocre technical quality and I admit I was concerned from the beginning whether this would be a valid FP nomination. However, as I have apparently advanced to a kind of arctic expert here, I could not withhold it, because it most clearly reveals the major threat that this beloved planet is exposed to. I just wanted to make this clear to you in the frame of FP and I am grateful to cart who has nominated it for VI (where it may be more than appropriate). --- As a final comment: In the recent issue of „Science“ researchers Notz and Stroeve report that the „Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission“. They discovered that one single flight from Frankfurt, Germany to San Francisco causes the melting of 5 square meters of arctic ice. Per passenger. This frightens me. – In this context: I would be glad to keep presenting you photos of a dying region of this earth. I’m not pathetic, I am concerned. --AWeith (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "withdraw" is stiked, and I renominate it for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AWeith, as photographer, has to consent to this nomination being active. He has the right to withdraw, regardless of who nominated his photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he wrote also: "so if you feel to nominate it for FP yourself, please feel free to do so." and I dit it :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Ikan Kekek: Is there a difference between Alchemist-hp using the current procedure to proceed in the nomination process and renewing it by himself after this has passed the deadline? I myself will not support the nomination but as I said - and I think it is correct - anyone can re-nominate the image as it is public domain. The only difference I can see is that reviving this process now benefits from the positive votes made so far. But I guess these judgements will be reiterated in an entirely new process. Logically it makes no difference to me. Are there any rules I don't know of? Please advise as I haven't been into this situation yet. --AWeith (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - See above, under "Featured picture candidate policy/General rules": Rule No. 6 is "Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time." That literally would mean that you could withdraw again ad infinitum, so in practice, anyone has to have your consent, or at least lack of insistence on withdrawing, in order to take over this nomination or renominate this photo in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Side note: please let me make clear that the link above to the extremely interesting Science Magazine article is still working; however, most of you may not have a VPN to get access to the full article. I think I do not infringe any rights if I offered access to a PDF copy for anyone here who is interested. Please advise if I am doing something stupid here.--AWeith (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AWeith i passed this yesterday, what you said, same context at end. --Mile (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - AWeith, why did you withdraw, when your photo was on track to be approved for a feature? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear Ikan Kekek, dear Alchemist-hp, dear all, I am very grateful that you lend your support to this image and I am glad to notice that there are people out here that recognize the deeper message of the starving bear. My decision was a two-edged sword. Leaving it in would have meant to betray myself as I am not fully convinced by the technical quality. Taking it out meant that the message – which I deem of utmost importance – might get lost. Now that cart has nominated it for VI and it has good chances to become a VI, the message will last. The image has obviously been used to illustrate several articles already. So my goal is reached; the award as an FP would have been extremely nice, but I would like to contribute keeping the standards of FP at the highest possible level. My apologies to all of you who are disappointed; I hope I made my point clear to you. It was not meant to offend anybody. The image is public domain, so if you feel to nominate it for FP yourself, please feel free to do so. Cheers, --AWeith (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - No, actually it is the right of the photographer to withdraw anyone's nomination of his/her photo. In any case, I fully understand and respect your reasoning on this and don't feel the least bit offended at all. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've heard far more ridiculous reviews. Many users here are not experts in some areas so they just get carried away by the "wow" of the photos. The most important part of this section is the criticism valid or not, please do not feel you offended, just ignore and move on. --The Photographer 12:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • plain  Support, in memoriam Lonesome George, Toughie and countless other species and individuals killed by Mankind. Gentle bear, please feed yourself on those assholes named "neokons" or other "economic supremacists" negating a sad truth of anthropogenic climate changes. // NPOV vote reasoning: uttermost highness of educational value, no obvious technical flaws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote stays for the re-nom. --cart-Talk 00:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm watching this nomination for a long while. Great EV; but quality is below considering other FPs of this animal. I think we can feature this now and consider a "delist and replace" when we get a better quality photo. I wish to give value for the author's word "I have stayed away from the intimidated animal at a respectful distance; this is why the crop is not particularly big." In wildlife photography more important is to keep us alive than to get a shot. (I hope this nomination is still active. If AWeith decides to "withdraw" it again, we have to respect it as author's wish over our interests.) Jee 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was the bear's safety that was considered here. If AWeith had gone any closer he might have stressed and frightened it. Since it obviously didn't have much strength left, using it's resources to flee and run or swim away might have been too much for it. cart-Talk 09:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only experience is with the fauna of the north and even the big ones prefer to run if they see a human, they are only dangerous if you surprise them or corner them. That's why there is a tradition of singing or whistling when you are out picking berries or mushrooms in the forests here. If the bears/wolves/moose/lynx/whatever hear you coming from far away, they will leave you alone. Only the wild boars are a bit unpredictable. The spriders and bugs on the other hand will never leave you alone... ;) cart-Talk 12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell, yeah, that's a great example of human ignorance. Of course, both species were acting according to their own instincts, the silverback investigating a trouble and being curious, the humans screaming in fear. But had the onlookers only had some more knowledge about the behaviour of our primate cousins, then this outcome wouldn't surely have occurred. Silverbacks of Gorilla gorilla are really sociable and responsible towards their family clan (as long as they do not have any kind of psychologic defect, but such a sick animal wouldn't be held together with females), and furthermore, human toddlers still have enough animalistic instinctive traits as for making themselves understood by any great ape (every adult of those four species should understand distress and curiosity of a child). I guess that in such a situation, the best any passerby could do is pleading for getting the child or object back: opening the hands, looking towards the ape, but not directly in the eyes, and not screaming, as human screams are of the same kind of sounds as used by chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans to communicate the proximity of a predator. The aituation seemed to be really similar to any shooting of unarmed suspects by police officers... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 02:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Ursidae_.28Bears.29
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Endangered_arctic_-_starving_polar_bear.jpg&oldid=760931799"