Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/U-2 Photo

• Support. Frankly, I am astonished to see people discussing the quality of one of the most important U-2 spy plane images ever taken under incredible difficult conditions. The historical importance of this image is so immense that it should be selected if it were 10 times crappier. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the closest the world ever came to a nuclear war! But maybe we should just vote for the 156th bug/spider macro, hurricane picture or Haeckel drawing, because they look so cool. [Sorry for the rant] Janderk 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Janderk, apparently you are willing to allow the photograph's historical importance to override all other considerations. I am not. For me, a featured image should be one that people react positively to whether they've read the captions and know its history or not. This one requires somebody to know the historical context before it is likely to impress. Pictures are a visual medium, and as such should impress visually (and immediately) if they are to be featured pictures. It won't really matter in the end... it looks like this one will reach a concensus of support despite a few 'oppose' votes. -- moondigger 12:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thought. Most of the featured pictures I've seen add significance and meaning to the articles they adorn. It's the opposite for this one... the article adds significance and meaning to the picture that the picture lacks all on its own. -- moondigger 12:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the fact that this is the only image of its kind outweighs the relative unattractivness of the pic. This is EXACTLY what is meant by the caveat in criteria 1 for featured pictures, i.e. "Be of high quality....The exception to this rule is the rarity or importance of the image being depicted." Witty lama 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not the only image of its kind, nor is it unique to Wikipedia. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There are many others. -- moondigger 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this blurry mess? Surely not a FP!

Another boring picture

Several WP FP's require more information to understand why they matter. Look through WP:FPV sometime. Some that come to mind are: the first photograph ever taken (right), which is a blurry mess, but still a Featured Picture; the only known photo of Chopin; and the sinking Japanese ship in WWII. The point: This is WP FPC, not Commons FPC. If you want to judge images on their appearance alone, go to Commons FPC. Here, the image's content, and use in an article, matter as well. More aesthetically-pleasing images (Haeckel's) need not have important content to become Featured. But, images with important content need not be aesthetically pleasing. Again, this only applies on WP FPC, not Commons FPC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 02:47

Brian, I have looked through WP:FPV, and even linked to it in the Giant Squid discussion to back my point. I stand by my opinion that an image can be important -- heck, it can be VERY important, such as the only known image of Chopin -- without having "featured" status. The alternative is to assume that only featured pictures are important, which is an unsupportable position, IMO. So yes, this means if I had been around for the vote on the Chopin image, I probably would have opposed it. And yet it still would have passed. I can't help voting the way I believe I should vote, whether others agree with my rationale or not.

Now, with that said, let me point out that even if I agreed with you about that particular issue, I might still oppose this photo. As I mentioned above, this is neither the only image of its kind nor is it unique to Wikipedia. I provided links to several other spy plane photos of Cuban missile sites taken around the same time as this one.-- moondigger 14:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the alternative is not that "only featured pictures are important". I made that completely clear in my reply above. The more beautiful a picture, the less important its content needs to be; and vice versa. As for your claim that since there are a number of photos of X, so therefore this photo of X shouldn't be featured: that would only apply if X was claimed to be rare (such as the photo of Chopin). That is not the case here. This photo is important not for its rarity, but for its content, and how that content was used. Your latest two rationale consisted of fallacious reasoning. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 15:38

Again: This is WP FPC, not Commons FPC

I'm not interested in Commons FPC... Wikipedia is what I value and where I want to participate.

As for your charge of fallacious reasoning -- you misunderstood my reasoning. It is not fallacious. If the "importance" of an image is enough to override any or all other considerations for featured picture status, then (eventually) all "important" pictures will be featured and any image that isn't featured will be (by this reasoning) unimportant. Note that I didn't say all featured pictures are important. Read through that again if you didn't catch the distinction.

"...that would only apply if X was claimed to be rare..." It was claimed to be rare, and furthermore its claimed rarity was used as justification for FP status by Witty lama, who said, "Yes but the fact that this is the only image of its kind outweighs the relative unattractivness of the pic." (Emphasis added by me.) I pointed out several other images like it in response to the claim that it was "the only image of its kind."

Brian, I think maybe we should drop this discussion. You're clearly getting far too worked up about it. I will continue to support or oppose photos based on my interpretation of the criteria. Let's agree to disagree. -- moondigger 16:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, more fallacious reasoning. Your statement about eventuality is about an event in the distant future, probably never; how much concern should we put in an event that may never happen? Why won't it happen? Because you're assuming that eventually a) no more pictures of any possible importance will be added to the site, and b) all the current pictures on the site will have been noticed by the few people who participate in FPC, and will have been nominated or ignored. As for its claim to rarity, that was made by another individual, not by me; anyone can claim anything, but only I am responsible for my statements. I did not claim it to be rare, but that its content was important. You seem to acknowledge its importance, but have this belief that something bad will happen if we accept important pictures that don't elicit an "Ooooh, shiny!" response.

I am not "getting worked up" about this, but feel free to claim otherwise (just avoid the ad hominems). As for your "interpretation of the criteria", it seems to have ignored the following phrase on the criteria page: "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed.". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 16:50

You just can't drop it, can you? I made the statement that pictures can be important without being featured. The alternative to that statement is that pictures can not be important without being featured. Understand? My expansion of that logic was reductio ad absurdum -- a mental exercize, not a proposal of what could actually happen. I am opposed to the idea that a photo should be featured solely because it is important.

As for the criteria... they don't say that important images must be featured... it says, quote, "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed." Can, not must. Furthermore, that caveat is not listed as an exception to all criteria; it's listed as an exception to the first criterion, "Be of high quality."

"Claim to rarity." I never said YOU made the claim. My rebuttal of the claim to rarity was only that: a rebuttal of the claim to rarity. You took issue with it, saying it was not a rebuttal of importance -- a claim I never made. Furthermore, don't put words in my mouth: I never said anything so dramatic as to imply the site would 'fall apart' if this image becomes a featured picture. I simply gave my reasoning for opposing it (which is what voters are encouraged to do), and acknowledged that it would probably pass anyway.

It is obvious to any casual reader that you are indeed 'worked up' about this. I fail to comprehend what possible "personal gain" I might obtain by pointing it out.

Finally, let's talk briefly about the featured picture criteria. If there is only one possible interpretation of the criteria, and it is not subject to personal opinion, what is the purpose of the voting process here? Why must we reach some concensus? We may as well assign somebody to apply that sole interpretation to each and every image and save everybody else the time. The fact is that the idea of a "featured" picture is inherently subjective (once objective criteria like licensing and resolution are met). I will continue to support or oppose according to my understanding and interpretation of the criteria.

Apologies to TomStar81 and anybody else who might be annoyed by this tangential discussion. -- moondigger 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. I typed my response to your original post. Apparently you've changed it in the interim. I'm not going to go back and edit my response to address the stuff that's no longer present in your post, like the "personal gain" comment. I will note here that I have made no ad-hominem attacks, the reference to which wasn't in your first post. -- moondigger 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm involved in such debates all the time. This is how reasoned discussion normally occurs. I'll try to keep my reply short: 1) You are mischaracterizing your original statement, which was a deduction that allowing pictures to be featured solely for their importance will eventually result in one being able to claim that a non-featured picture is not important; which I have shown is nonsense. 2) As for the criteria's exception, you are applying the phrase "exception to this rule" to the original title of the rule, and discarding the contents of the exception, which make it clear it is an exception to other rules, though it doesn't state that explicitly. 3) If you never thought I claimed rarity, why did you reply to me with a rebuttal to a claim I didn't make? 4) This is how reasoned discussion occurs, and it occurs all the time. Feel free to continue claiming that I am "worked up". Can I ask you what your purpose is in making this claim? Is it not an ad hominem simply because you claim it is not? 5) Of course the criteria can be interpreted to some extent; but it shouldn't be selectively read. 6) There is no #6. 7) Apologies to anyone who might be annoyed by this discussion. 8) Next time, please wait a while before replying, as I often fine tune my replies after clicking submit. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 17:50

Alright, let's take this one-by-one, according to your numbering.

1. I am not mischaracterizing my original statement. Please don't attempt to tell me what I meant. The exact quote is, (A)"I stand by my opinion that an image can be important -- heck, it can be VERY important, such as the only known image of Chopin -- without having "featured" status. Immediately following that statement, I applied the reductio ad absurdum: (B)"The alternative is to assume that only featured pictures are important, which is an unsupportable position, IMO." Perhaps it was a failing in the way I worded it, or in the fact that I didn't explicitly state the interim logic, but you took it to mean something other than what I intended. My sole purpose in bringing it up was to show that my statement (labeled A) is a supportable position, while the opposite (labeled B) is not -- and is, in fact, absurd. I'll not address this particular subpoint again, as we're just going in circles now.

2. There is nothing in that statement which would allow one to ASSUME that the exception applies to any other criterion than the one it is subordinate to. It actually says, "The only exception to this rule...", so I don't see how you can stretch it to be an exception to other rules as well.

3. I did not reply to a rebuttal claim of yours. I gave another reason why I would oppose the nomination even if we were to ignore our disagreement about historical importance. Go back and read it again if that's not clear. I'll not address this particular subpoint again, for the same reason as in subpoint 1.

4. I believe you are (or were) "worked up" about this because of the large text statement (which 'looks' like shouting, if you catch my drift) and your repeated requests for me to take my opinions elsewhere (Commons FPC). I am curious as to what you think "worked up" means, given your reaction to the statement. To me, it's a statement of mood similar but not identical to "agitated." It was not intended as an attack on you; it was an observation. If it was an incorrect observation, I apologize.

5. I am not selectively reading the criteria. My interpretation simply differs from yours. Again, if there were no such thing as differing interpretations, there would be no point in having votes. It does appear that you are selectively reading the criteria, applying an exception clearly limited to one criterion (to this rule) to all of them.

6. There is no response to point 6.

7. Apologies previously made.

8. I hope I waited long enough this time.

Brian, let's drop this now, or at least take it out of the U-2 Photo discussion. We've wasted well more than enough space here. Contact me on my talk page if you like. -- moondigger 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

1) I misinterpreted you; you misinterpreted me. Done. 2) Just because it explicitly states that it is an exception to one rule doesn't mean it isn't an exception to another rule; another fallacy on your part. 3) You replied to me, without my assistance: "As I mentioned above, this is neither the only image of its kind nor is it unique to Wikipedia." Why you stated it, I don't know. I pointed out that not all important pictures are rare pictures, and then you rebutted by pointing out that someone else claimed the picture was rare, even though I didn't. Why you led us down that path, I don't know. 4) The large text was simply to point out what you seemed to be ignoring, namely that on Wikipedia there is more to images than just "Ooooh, shiny!", which is all you get with Commons FPC. "Worked up" means getting overly excited; whatever you think it means, it's related to an emotion, and is a comment about the person, rather than the person's arguments. Why you felt you needed to include comments about my alleged emotions in a rebuttal of my rationale, I don't know. 5) See 2. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 19:10

Responses:

1. Settled.

2. Talk about selective reading. The exception is a subordinate bullet to Rule #1, and actually says it is an exception, QUOTE, "to this rule." There can be no better example of selective reading in this entire discussion than the fact that you dismiss both the clause and the subordinate formatting as meaningless.

3. I wasn't going to address this again, but apparently you still don't understand. You're doing more selective reading here. Look at the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted for the context it should be taken in. Never mind, I'll quote the whole thing here, with annotations in parentheses:

"Now, with that said, let me point out that even if I agreed with you about that particular issue, (see note below) I might still oppose this photo." (That was the context. Here is the disputed statement:) As I mentioned above, this is neither the only image of its kind nor is it unique to Wikipedia. (Note: The preceding sentence was offered as another reason why I would still oppose the photo's nomination for featured status, even if I agreed with you that historical importance was enough to override the requirement that images be high quality.)

As clearly as I can possibly state it: my statement about the image not being unique is another reason why I would oppose the nomination, not a rebuttal to your "historical importance" argument.

4. I was not commenting on your emotional state in an attempt to discredit your arguments. It is obvious based on the context in which I made the statement that I only mentioned you appearing to be "worked up" as a reason to drop the discussion entirely. I learned a long time ago that arguing with strangers on the internet to the point of agitation is rarely of value.

But speaking of ad-hominem attacks, you're skating pretty close to the line with your repeated assertions that my statements demonstrate fallacious reasoning. You're commenting on my reasoning rather than addressing the points directly, and as I'm sure you're aware, it's annoying, even if it could be argued that doing so doesn't technically constitute an ad-hominem attack.

5. See 2.

-- moondigger 19:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2) Look, this is very simple logic. The exception doesn't say "this is an exception only to this rule." Whatever the case, I've clarified the text based on past examples. 3) So, you would oppose on the grounds that it is not rare (as if it was purporting to be rare), even if it is still important? That is like opposing on the grounds that an image is not important, even though it's high quality and aesthetically pleasing. You're opposing something that wasn't even on the table. Another logical fallacy. 4) It is clear you are getting worked up over this, however I do not see a reason to end the discussion simply due to your emotional state. 4a) I found your comment very amusing, as did a few of the folks in IRC (eg: "brian0918: Ask them if they'd prefer if you went ad hominem instead of pointing out flaws in their logic."). A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Identifying them as such says nothing about the person making the statement, just that the statement has no grounds in reason. If I tell you that a device in my shoe is good at repelling tigers, because I've never seen a tiger, would you try to argue about the device that I claim to have in my shoe, or point out the obvious fallacious reasoning in that statement? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 20:41

2. What do you think the words "to this rule" mean in the context of the statement as it was written prior to your change? What do you think the subordinate bullet means, if not that it is intended to apply to the parent statement?

3. I'm saying I would oppose featured status for the image even if the importance "issue" didn't exist, for more than one reason. Even if we ignore the historical importance question you kept pushing, there are other reasons, such as the rarity question, that I might oppose it on. See rule #3, "Be Wikipedia's best work, which says, "It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." Spy photo images of Cuban missile sites from the early 1960s are not uncommon on the internet. Each voter has to decide how much weight to assign any given criterion. If an image falls short on several criteria (in my estimation), then I will not support it. If it falls short on only one or two criteria, I might support it. Depends on the image.

4a. Perhaps you should read the ad hominem article you linked to previously, where it explains subtler forms of ad hominem arguments. One example given there is the statement: "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win." Such a statement does not address the argument itself; it is simply an opinion about the argument rather than to the argument. In other words, you point out flaws in a logical argument not by calling them flawed, but by demonstrating the flaws.

Per your tiger example: John, who lives in Minnesota, says that an object in his shoe must be good at repelling tigers because he never sees tigers.

Addressing the argument: "You don't see tigers because tigers are not native to Minnesota. The object in your shoe has nothing to do with it." John made no statement about his reasoning; he made a statement about tigers and an object in his shoe. Addressing tigers and the object in his shoe is a valid counterargument.

Blatant ad hominem attack: "Only a moron would think an object in his shoe could keep tigers away." No need to explain this one, I hope.

Subtle ad hominem attack: "John, that is fallacious reasoning." John made no statement about his reasoning. Bringing it up, and calling it fallacious, is a subtle kind of ad hominem attack, as it is about the argument and not to the argument. It is also possible that your assessment of John's reasoning is wrong; that his arguments are not actually fallacious, either because you do not know the full context in which John made his statement or because of some other miscommunication or misunderstanding.(*) The plain fact is that in calling John's reasoning "fallacious," you have not addressed John's point about tigers or his shoe. Even if you follow that statement with the Addressing the argument statements, that doesn't change the fact that the first statement was an ad hominem attack.

(*) To head off the obvious objection, let's theorize that John has some kind of device in his shoe that emits a high-frequency sound tigers find annoying, which he wears on frequent visits to Asian jungles. The particulars are not important: your hypothetical was designed to be ridiculous in the first place.

The fact remains that in accusing somebody of fallacious reasoning, you are not addressing the particular points they may have made, but attacking their reasoning skills -- which is a personal attack, whether their reasoning is fallacious or not. It might actually be true that John is a moron, but that doesn't make the Blatant ad hominem attack quoted above any less of an ad hominem attack. Likewise, even if my reasoning had been fallacious, that doesn't change the fact that bringing it up is a subtle ad hominem attack.

In the end this all boils down to one issue: my vote. I have no idea why you're so concerned about it. I was not the only "oppose" vote on this photo, and no amount of argument is going to get me to change it. We are told to give reasons for our support or opposition, and I did just that, though at this point I'm starting to doubt the wisdom in doing so.

FYI, I'm dropping out of this discussion. We really are going in circles now.

-- moondigger 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3) As I said, I've clarified the exception, so this is pointless.

4a) The example you give of subtle ad hominem is nothing like what I have been saying. Of course your example is subtle ad hominem, as it implies the person is purposely making fallacious remarks. I did not simply say "that's a fallacy"; I also explained why. So it is not ad hominem, subtle or otherwise. Thus, your rebuttal replies to a misrepresentation of my original statements (another form of logical fallacy).

Next time you are planning on so quickly dropping a discussion, please just don't get involved in it in the first place. It wastes everyone's time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 23:14