File talk:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg

Main page?

WHY is this going on the front page on April 29th? What is wrong with you people? Sure, it's fine to have the picture in its relivent article, where those who are interested can see it, but to put it right on the front page, where anyone scrolling down to the links at the bottom of the main page must see it, this picture of dozens of dolphins dead with their guts hanging out? Who made the Wikipedia policy where content of a picture has nothing to do with whether it's featured, and all featured pictures need to go on the front page on their descided date? Regardless of the quality of the picture, it's content is disgusting and disturbing, and it doesn't deserve to be on the front page, where millions of people will see it whether they want to or not. It's just dumb that current Wikipedia policy works to trick people into seeing things they might not want to see on the Main Page. Kevin 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, there are certain FA's which will never appear on the main page (I've seen Raul say that, although I can't remember where), there should be certain pics which could never bo one the main page either. That gruesome eye pic from a week or two back is one, as is this. Quadzilla99 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is reality folks. People do this to whales. Why don't you like it? Is it seen as cruel? Bloody? Unnecessary? Has it raised your consciousness about whale slaughter? If so, then it has made a point about the world we live in. Of course it should be on the front page. Gillyweed 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't pretend like it's hard to understand, I have no problem with the picture being featured I just don't think it should be put on the main page for obvious reasons. Quadzilla99 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reasons are not obvious to me. It's a disgusting picture. But why should the world not know about it? Why should we protect people from seeing the horrible things that humans do? Gillyweed 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they're not obvious to you. Wikipedia's not a propaganda machine. If you want the world to know about whaling, give a link to the peta website. Not only is it a disgusting picture, it's pointless to put on the front page. It forces people to see it, even if they want to, and has only negative consequeces. It makes people dislike Wikipedia for putting such filth on the front page, and makes people angry for being tricked into seeing something they don't want to, and all for what? Do you expect the world will picket because the Japanese hunt dolphins? Do you want to use Wikipedia as media to get people angry? No, it's an encylopedia, and encyclopedia's don't have pictures of dead whales on their front pages; they have them in their articles on whale fishing, where they belong. This isn't http://www.peta-online.org/, and it's absurd to put things on the front page just to "shock" people and trick them into seeing it. Kevin 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(re-set margin) This picture is not going on the front page because of historical significance or political importance, it's going on because it's high quality. Last month there was a photo of eye surgery that went on the front page that was similarly gruesome. I'm saying that they should be featured but not on the front page. Quadzilla99 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that all featured pictures had to go on the front page. But, I just skimmed the Featured Picture article, and found there are some that are featured, but didn't become picture of the day. In that case, I agree, that the quality of the picture (it's high resolution, if nothing else) might make it deserve to be a featured picture, but not a picture of the day. However, since it's already been chosen to be POTD for April 29th, is there really anything anyone can do? Kevin 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We could bring it up at the Village Pump policy section. Quadzilla99 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was making no comment about it being propaganda. I was raising the question regarding whose 'view of the world' do we accept? Who determines what is 'horrible'. And I again ask, why is horrible banned from the front page? I suggest that you then ban all the news items regarding suicide bombers, plane crashes, executions, genocide... etc etc. WP is not censored for minors. Gillyweed 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this have anything to do with news articles? News articles, as well as every non-featured article or picture on Wikipedia is free to be looked up by whoever pleases to do so, but more importantly, free to NOT be looked up by those that DON'T want to know about or expose themselves to certain things. However, by putting things on the main page, you're more or less forcing Wikipedia users to look at the picture, whether they like it or not. Kevin 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you can't understand our points, we're saying since it's graphic it shouldn't be on the main page. Just like nudity will never be on the main page. Say a photo of two people having sex became featured, it would never get on the main page in a millenium. Why is graphic violence and gore more acceptable than two adults during intercourse? The point I'm making is there's already censorship, so it's incorrect to say there isn't. I'd rather it extend to images like this than nudity. Quadzilla99 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can see your point of view. It is the same point of view that determines that some things are good for people to look at and not for others. And how do you decide? Those who agree with you are correct and those who don't agree are incorrect. I have no objection to nudity on the front page. A couple having intercourse on the front page is fine with me - that's how we all got here! I find consenting sex vastly more acceptable than violence and slaughtered animals. But my proposition remains, what is offensive is in the 'eye of the beholder' and as nobody knows what the beholder thinks, it should not be censored. Do I have limits on what is acceptable? Of course, but I imagine that my limits are at the outer edge of the normal curve, compared to yours. Paedophilia, gratuitous violence are about my only limits to what should go on the front page - everything else is normal human experience Gillyweed 03:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I watch pornography and horror movies (often rated NC-17 or unrated) just like most males my age, I just don't think this kind of thing belongs on the main page. Please don't make me out to be some kind of censor, it's inaccurate and there's no need to get heated or make this personal. Also the images that would be unacceptable to put on the front page are fairly obvious. Quadzilla99 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)What is the point of having any image on the front page, if not to illustrate the breadth of the content of Wikipedia? If it is not deemed illegal, or outraging common decency, then an image can only fail to be published if it does not fulfill WP criteria. This must have already been discussed at an editorial level and the decision made. If editors wish to discuss the means and manner by which a decision is reached then fine, but campaigning against a particular image does not address the issue. LessHeard vanU 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the specific discussion regarding this image. Interested editors may wish to go to Wikipedia:Featured pictures to review the policies and practices regarding candidature. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, but no one said the policy currently prohibits pics like this from being on the main page. Also, the FAC is useless as no one said it shouldn't be an FA. This was brought up at the Village Pump, however Kevin made a far-reaching proposal that went too far in my opinion (removing all pics from the main page). Perhaps given the large negative response to this pic some dialogue concerning graphic images on the main page should be considered. It's clear a lot of editors don't like the idea. Quadzilla99 12:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's where Kevin, after I recommended him to (see above), brought up the issue at the pump: click here Of course I think his solution was far too drastic, after the pic appears on the main space I'll probably try to gauge the reaction and bring it up again over there. Quadzilla99 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't know http://www.wikipedia.org/ brought users to the kind of page I was talking about, where featured content isn't forced on people. So nevermind that post (I'd delete it, but I don't think I'm allowed), and get back to talking about whether certain images shouldn't be put on as the POTD. It's kind of embarassing when you suggest something be done that's already been done :(. Kevin 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who cares: This picture was April 19's featured picture in the Indonesian Wikipedia already. And it seems to have survived so far on the #21 Wikipedia. Gdo01 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh this is lovely... --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to mention that these are not dolphins but whales, not that that makes it any less disturbing.--Stuart.skingle 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they are dolphins. Lagenorhynchs. --Nnemo (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this is reality...but it is a distrubing type of reality that many people do not want to see. Why show this on the main page? It is the equivelent of showing some other type of media distrubance on the main page, for example a recent dead corpse of a human being. Ah. Reality you say? Our reality is cruel enough and it's impossible to change it.Marielenh 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's impossible to change it if you just ignore it. As for the image, it's high quality and illustrates the article perfectly. That's why it's a featured picture. And Wikipedia is not censored. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:10Z
  • So if Wikipedia is not censored, then why do I find references to the fact that "There is no way we're gonna have nudes on the front page, lol nyroro~n?" That kinda defeats the purpose of WP:NOT when an artistic nude get's penalized from FA status all because some model decides to let her aerola's peek out. --293.xx.xxx.xx 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe what some of you people are saying. To put a picture of that atrocity on the main page of a encyclopedia is not acceptable by any means. I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, however, to put such a revolting picture on the Main Page, where anybody who is looking for a more sensible way to contribute to the site can see it, is not okay. Show some sensibility, people. The Bone III 17:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • We see worse things done to humans everyday on TV. People do not have to enter this web-site and people do not have to turn on the TV. The other day I saw a woman crying over her dead baby which was bombed into pieces in front of her. If you find some dead whales revolting, then you shouldn't open any encyclopedia at all or look at the news for that matter. God forbid if you accidentally came across reality and found yourself in some article about the holocaust.--84.217.145.243 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sure the response will be more severe if the FP was a pic of gutted humans. Although it's reality, that doesn't mean that it should be placed on the main pages for young children to accidentally stumble across. If a child actively sought a graphic pic, then it's the child's fault if he or she sees an obscene pic. However, it becomes the community's fault if the child accidentally sees the graphic pic. The same applies to any adult (but to a lesser extent). Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • There are plenty of children who observe (or even help the adults with) this grindadrap in reality, so I see little harm if some other children see just a picture of it somewhere on the net. --Sigurdas (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't like the image. Direct your revolt against the Faroese hunt, rather than against the image. --Nnemo (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Caption

Does anyone else see the picture's caption to read that this was taken in the Faroe islands, in the UK? Hawker Typhoon 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what it says. I see from the linked article that the Faroe Islands are part of Denmark. Can't change it right now, because of the cascading protection, but I'll do it after it's off the Main Page (if I remember). Or, you can ask an admin to do it for you. --Herald Alberich 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure part of it was lost at some point, and it originally said "Faroe Islands, north of the UK," as the caption on the Main Page currently does. So there's the reason. --Herald Alberich 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems! I was worried that my browser was playing up! Hawker Typhoon 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I enhanced the caption a little bit. It can further be mentioned from my side, that hunting of other small whales than the traditional pilot whales ("grind whales") is not undisputed among the Faroese. I once saw a poll at a Faroese internet newspaper, where roughly 50 % voted for prohibition of hunting white-sided dolphins. Actually, they must be considered as a kind of "bycatch" (although they came without pilot whales that day). However, such is reality in a rural society, where some things are still normal, which has been banned in our countries many decades before. Keep in mind, that this hunting is uncommercial and really for gratis food, distributed to everyone. And keep in mind, that the Faroes have strict laws about whaling. -- Arne List 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose countries are “our countries” ? --Nnemo (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Strict laws ? Are you kidding ? --Nnemo (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wallpaper

"This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 8:5, making it suitable as a widescreen computer wallpaper. "

Any takers? Wikipedia brown 19:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I put that template up, merely because it is fairly large and has the correct ratio, just as I do for all such FPs in the archive at the beginning of each month. I did note in my edit summary that it would be unlikely anyone would actually take advantage of the notice. --Herald Alberich 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with that as a wallpaper? It's either that or a picture of a naked woman.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.32.21.75 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Because I can fap to a naked girl. To fap to gutted whales....well, your a sad, sad little man...--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "Whatever floats your boat". Oh, wait a sec... -masa ♫ 05:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, nice --King ♣ Talk 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deserves as much attension as it can get

Well done to wikipedia for putting this on the main page. Its a greate picture, and people need to see this if crimes against the planet like this are even going to be stopped.

I don't believe it is a crime as long it is non-commercial. Look here Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands. Kboom 06:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is commercial, I can't really envision the planet suing you or trying to convict you. -masa ♫ 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

whoa look at all those intestines and stuff, wicked --89.180.173.27 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sad

That is just really sad. Moray594 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The things you want deleted from wikipedia never get deleted. the things you don't want deleted, disappear before your eyes. I'm tired of this. Sneakernets (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, Wikipedias rules aren´t based on your opinions.--Threedots dead (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is very sad. Disturbing and cruel tradition. --Sigurdas (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic white-sided dolphins are not anywhere near endangered. The ratio of fishing to whaling on the Faroe Islands keeps the respective populations under control, as they have for centuries. Circle of life, bro. We can't all eat Tofu. --King ♣ Talk 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Humans are not anywhere near endangered. So let's slaughter humans with harpoons ?

As to tofu, you are wrong, get better informed.

--Nnemo (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)