Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Me109

Messerschmitt Me109

Reason

This high quality (1,280 × 593) image clearly shos this historical aircraft in flight.

Articles this image appears in

Messerschmitt Bf 109

Creator

Kogo

• Support as nominator --Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent pic, high rez. Even though the pic is a little on the small side, the subject takes up almost the whole frame. Clegs (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Clegs. High EV, nice shot. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this action shot for its EV and high quality. Fletcher (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It lacks authentic Hakenkreuz marking, therefore does not present a historically accurate machine. Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I submit we can be forgiving of this if it is a consequence of censorship in Germany. The Messerschmitt Foundation appears to be a German organization, which may be prohibited from adding swastikas to its aircraft. Perhaps any German readers can clarify if that's true. And I think the photo is most encyclopedic with respect to the aircraft, less so as an example of nazi iconography. Fletcher (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry to disagree, but these machines cannot and must not be view abstractly. The Bf 109 was designed and developed for the Swastika. Any attempt at removing historical symbols because we rather they were not there is a distortion of history. This might be acceptable in Germany, where there is a general keenness to sweep this under the carpet, but not in a place that is suppossed to present a neutral and factual depiction of history. Dapi89 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to distinguish between "we airbrushed it out" (not good) and "it's not on the machine itself" (somewhat moot). The major encyclopedic value of this shot isn't in it showing a Luftwaffe machine - it's in it being a clear and clean shot of the machine in flight; note that the various captions just talk about landing gear and not paint schemes. As such, that value would still be there were it painted in complete Luftwaffe markings, in partial Luftwaffe markings, in Swiss markings, or even in bare metal.
    talk | 11:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I think you contradict yourself. It has been airbrushed out! It is missing, not through accident, but due to deliberate act on the part of its owners to avoid the symbol! Furthermore, the main picture should picture a Bf 109 in German markings, not Swiss, or any Axis nation other than Germany. The Luftwaffe was the largest operator of this aircraft. Dapi89 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe Nazi swastika and the SS insignia are banned from public display in Germany and Austria, which makes this not a "deliberate act on the part of its owners to avoid the symbol" but one forced on them by law. Also, this FAC is about whether this pic is of high quality and encyclopedic value, not whether it belongs as the main picture on the Bf 109 page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see mottling on the tail, but it's not distinguishable from mottling on the rest of the plane. My understanding is that the swastika won't have been on there when the aircraft was photographed - it's not been edited out of the photo. We can confirm this with other pictures of the same plane.
    • If what you mean is "at some point since 1944, someone has removed the swastika from the tail"... well, as it happens, when we look at
      talk | 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment Another contradiction, and irrelevant. German law, whether right or wrongly, is distorting the image, and that is deliberate! This is not the German wikipedia, nor is it Germany. Dapi89 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find that more a commentary on the German government than on this particular photo of an aircraft. It is not a "contradiction" or "irrelevant" to point out that on FPC we are judging based on technical merit and encyclopedic value, NOT exclusively on historical authenticity. How much the authenticity of markings affects EV is a point that may be argued -- I think it depends on what the image is trying to show. If the image was in the Luftwaffe and was trying to show what Luftwaffe planes looked like at the time, authenticity would be of great importance. If it's in Messerschmitt Bf 109 (as it in fact is) and is just trying to depict the aircraft, I think the markings are of secondary importance. I think it may be appropriate to simply point out in the caption that the markings are incomplete to comply with German censorship. Fletcher (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, a caption note is perhaps the best solution - though I'd shy from using "censorship", since it implies the owners wanted to put it on but weren't permitted. As the owners are Messerschmitt themselves, they might have better taste ;-) "A Bf-109 in partial Luftwaffe markings" might be a suitable phrase...
        talk | 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Comment I believe it is a contradiction, and I think people are missing the point I am trying to make here. 1) The image should represent a 109 in German markings, I would expect the same for a Spitfire or a P-51 Mustang, both should be represented by their main operator, in full. The image clearly shows censorship. If you go through the list of Bf 109 survivors, all the German marked ones adorn this symbol, with the exception of the German based/German owned examples. Wikipedia is not supposed to show censored material that is restricted, for the most part, by a small number of nations due to their paranoia. The date of the picture has no relevance in this debate. A picture taken yesterday of this machine should display exactly how it looked during wartime operations. This is not an acceptable excuse. Adding just a note or caption is not ideal either, as this can be removed. Dapi89 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reiterate my point that this aircraft never flew in the Luftwaffe, and that what markings it is or isn't in are irrelevant to a picture whose merit is to show mechnical features rather than historic ones. The fact that the owner of the aircraft has chosen to modify what is already an arbitrary paint scheme does not make us party to "paranoia" or "censorship"; this picture is not materially any better or worse because it doesn't have a swastika on the tail. I mean, even if it did, the picture is posed in such a way that it'd be almost invisible - a small black marking on dark paint and in shadow.
    • We would be party to censorship if we were making out that this is what a Luftwaffe fighter looked like, because we would be misleading and deliberately erroneous. But we're not. The article contains no shortage of Me109s with and without swastikas, and I don't think anyone will be misled by this image.
      talk | 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Even more reasons why it should not be the main picture, it is not authentic war time aircraft, and neither is its insignia. I disagree, people will be misled, I would. If I was presented with different images portraying different things, and I did not know a 109 from a kite, I would want to know "well, what is realistic and what is not? They can't all be right". I don't understand everyones aversion to accuracy. Dapi89 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dapi89 - good point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle.bungle (talk • contribs)

• Support. Nice use of focus. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if caption is amended to note the absence of wartime markings. Durova^Charge! 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if caption is further amended to properly identify this aircraft as a Hispano Aviación HA-1112 rebuilt to resemble a BF109 G-6 and the word original is removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M1903a4 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've updated the caption. The word "original" is just a part of the FPC process. I'm not a regular here so I'm wondering, is the caption pertinent to whether or not the picture itself is FP quality? Nevermind, I just reread
    WP:FP?- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• CommentOkay, I can accept the inclusion of that specific text in the caption above and will support it on that condition. However, I would like all editors to make an effort to make sure this remains the caption in the article. As you all know, people tend to change caption wording and this one should be maintained. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Me109 G-6 D-FMBB 1.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]