Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Goat killed at Christmas Lunch.jpg

File:Goat killed at Christmas Lunch.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 11:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Goat killed at Christmas Lunch.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Goat killed at Christmas Lunch.jpg

•  Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Photographer (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - the white "drops" on the goat are a bit overexposed which is a shame and a shorter exposure time wouldn't have hurt, but I still think it's a good shot. --heb [T C E] 11:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose! Detestable! An excellent image should be aestetical too. This is my opinion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think censoring things just because they're unpleasant helps encyclopedic goals. This is a good image of something that many people prefer not to think about, but that shouldn't mean it's off the table for an educational process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, this is Christmas too... --87.6.121.243 12:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support There's a documentary value, the quality is good. People are people... What do you expect? Should COM:FP only include butterflies and eye-catching landscapes? Imo: no, there's place for certain unesthetic motives as well. --A.Savin 19:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No! We must present bestial force. That's what we need here. – I hope you understand the irony. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that this photograph raw, affected your feelings, I understand this may be hard for some people, however, is the reality, this is part of human culture. Humanity and human society has made atrocities and yet that is included in Wikipedia articles, the truth must be told. A rosy world hiding the truth can result in something worse, the truth always finds a way to come to light. Back then, if we begin to censor this kind of work, this section will end up being as soon 500px.com or commercial waste. This is a repository of free images and not only beautiful wallpapers for windows XP. --The Photographer (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Documentary value, no doubt. But the shirt of the person at left is disturbing and ruins the composition in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Lothar. Without doubt a good photo, but we should consider that FPs get exposed places and can be easily found. With the educational use of WP (and Commons) in mind (WP is already used on elementary schools in Germany) this photo should not be seen and easily found by children under 18 years. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia or commons not should be censored, if we begin to do nothing will be left to the final. If a child learns something difficult what better place to do it than Wikipedia. A neutral article with references rather than a site of dubious origin. Explain things to children rather than hide them is the way. If you are interested you can visit it --The Photographer (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My argument was not about censorship, but about protection of minors. Freedom can only work within an ethical / reasonable border. Take the age limit of films: Reasonable because a minor randomly zapping through the TV after school should not see picture of brutual violence. The same applies to your photo: If one searches intentionally one will find your photo. But we should not make the access to such photos so easy that a random surfer (e.g. a 10 year old child looking at the beautiful pictures of animals on FP) can find it. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks more-like a snapshot. The shirt on the left hand side is distracting. Overall not much "wow" for me --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose The shirt is really bothering me, too. Michael Barera (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose documentary value is given, no doubt about that. But for my personal view I am not willing to call a bestial murder scene an excellent image even if this is part of the tradition in some culture area. If someone would come to the idea to make a technical perfect shoot of a piece of shit I would oppose too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's horribly offensive and culturally insensitive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No it's not. He's offered a personal value judgement and clearly states that this judgement is independent of any cultural considerations. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose I agree it would fit in good on a TV show documentary, or National Geographic piece, but its not a featured picture. That shirt on the left gets in the way too, but I think that having a picture which illustrates the bloody death of an animal is not the sort of thing you'd like to see as a featured picture. I think the main thing is that the goat here is dying, and I'm not saying I'm a vegetarian hippie or anything, but I think its respectful not to glorify this by making it a FP. --Spartan7W (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a ceremony that is not done for pleasure, is an act for food. The fact that you dont see when you kill an animal does not mean that there :(

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)