Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg

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

File:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 01:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by Erik Christensen - uploaded by Jrockley -- 99.224.135.218 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- 99.224.135.218 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)No anon votes please. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Why would they do that? WHY?!? ...Even though they're carnivorous cetaceans and I could see some practical uses in addition to food -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 05:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Why not? The species is abundant (, least concern conservation status, less than 1000 individuals are caught each year from a population of 2-300000) and is used for food and considered a delicacy at the Faroe islands. What is the difference between eating this and other mammals like cows, sheep, pigs? Aren't you just imposing your cultural values on another culture? BTW, due to the high concentration of certain pollutants being built up in the food chain, I recently read that the meat from whales and dolphins are now marked as health-hazards in a similar manner as cigarettes. Yet some people continue smoking and the Faroe people will probably continue eating the meat of the Atlantic white-sided dolphins...--Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly you failed to note the partial unseriousness of my comment. Secondly I thought I made it clear that, well, they're carnivores; natural killers and consumers of animals also, so... I don't feel too sorry for them when they do this all their lives to other creatures anyway, though it's evolution's fault and not their own. Thirdly, awareness of apparent violence isn't cultural, it's an aspect in most vertebrate nature. Fourthly, I mentioned practicality, such as possible uses for the blubber and the bones could probably make good fertilizer and a source of calcium - I bet they do taste good though..) Lastly, all that aside it's still gory and while not relevant to whether or not this is up to snuff to be a FP I wonder if the slaughter method used is humane (for one thing if they were killed before they were disemboweled), as I still do for cattle and chickens. And it's just kind of sad to see pieces of their fins broken off. While educational it's really IMO quite a tragic and saddening picture and not uplifting in the least (unless maybe you're a school of fish glad there's a few less dolphins roaming the waters late at night). -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 05:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct. I failed to put sufficient weight in the last part of your paragraph. The first part was emphasized and partially capitalized, which I interpreted as the part you gave real weight. Sorry for not having perceived your partial unseriousness in the comment. I understand much better what you mean now. --Slaunger (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment !!! --Citron (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A bold nomination and a very valuable photo of a rare sight. Good composition, striking, good DOF, light is a bit boring, resolution is not stunning, but mitigatable. --Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- It is shocking to see this kind of pictures because whales are among the most inteligent animals on Earth, capable of feeling and expressing human-like emotions. This should perhaps be enough to forbid their killing for commercial purposes, but I understand how traditional practises may slow down what we consider to be the correct policy. Still we shouldn't be fooled by ethic considerations when assessing a picture, one way or the other. Our evaluation should be focused on the educational, aesthetical and technical value of the picture, taking into consideration the difficulty or rarity associated with the shot. In this case, there is nothing extraordinary justifying the FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Slaunger. --Lošmi (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Abderitestatos (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Alvesgaspar, except the last sentence. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Specifically, the crop is not nice. There should have been a way not to have cut animals at every border of the image. W.S. 14:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Wetenschatje. --Stryn (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The composition and techincal quality are enough for FP. Don't let us be fooled to think we only think that way because of what the picture portraits. --Tomer T (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Elements unnecessarily cropped out of the frame unfortunately. Steven Walling 22:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Wetenschatje's comment on the crop. --Avenue (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose high EV but the image crop/composition is not the best possible. Ggia (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Quality is average, but there's a lot of "wow" factor here. -- King of 05:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth has this nomination turned into some ethical battle, I don't know.  Support wow factor and high quality image. -- Good twins (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see an ethical battle here. Just one semi-jocular comment, with a brief discussion due to it being misinterpreted, and another voter saying that the ethical issues are not relevant. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]