Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Regiment from Petrograd

Regiment from Petrograd[edit]

Reason: World War I is of interest at FPC today so let's consider what would become the first FP of the Eastern Front. (Don't worry; we're not countering too much systemic bias--they weren't Bolsheviks). Restored file per upload notes.
Articles this image appears in: Women's Battalion
Creator: unknown

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 09:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused about the caption, it says this unit pushed past German trenches, but this looks more like a unit consuming the vodka. What is this unit? Is the caption correct? --Blechnic (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was the 1st Petrograd Women's Battalion. Yes, the caption is correct. Durova^Charge! 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could do with a better, more explanatory caption. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll draft something. :) It seemed like at least a couple of voters were actively hostile to the idea of having an FP on female active duty personnel. This find was serendipity while I was looking for potential FPC restorations on Russian history. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to this? All of the opposers in that nomination (myself included) voted on quality grounds. I didn't sense any hostility. NauticaShad es 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone showed up on a single shot IP for the express purpose of accusing me of gender bias. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, that person doesn't get counted as a voter.... Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I've updated the caption; hope it's acceptable now. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So this is definitely the women's battalion? Fletcher (talk)`
        There are enough women in uniform that it seems likely. Still, the caption does not relate to what is happening in the image, and it's hard to grasp what is going on in the image that relates to the caption. Are they resting after? Doesn't look like it. Is this just a picture of the group known for this, and this image unrelated? --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this is a photograph taken in late February of the following year. Imagery of the Russian female World War I units isn't easy to locate in English language archives, and I haven't had much luck getting assistance from the Russian editors regarding this. As you might suppose from my username, I've had my eye out for this kind of thing for years. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oppose I think it's a great picture, but the image itself is not compelling, and the caption is entirely unrelated to what is happening in the image. --Blechnic (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Reading the discussion with Papa Lima Whiskey I see his issue (and from a comment he made on my talk page, and rethinking the image). I think it's an excellent image, but I don't think it shows anything compelling. If this is the first FP of the Eastern Front, it ought to be a battle scene or a refugee scene or the women in action or something. But I don't find anything compellingly encyclopedic about a group of soldiers drinking coffee and posing for photographs in between battles. Better caption for the image, though: what's going on, plus related the unit historically. --Blechnic (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, I'm sure I might be accused of all sorts of things, seeing that this seems to be the tone of these nominations recently, *but* in this picture, I can clearly identify everyone on the right of the picture as female. However, in the image nominated here, some individuals could plausibly be boys. A brief scan of our articles reveals that Polish boys did participate in warfare from 1918 (see Lwów Eaglets), which makes it plausible that boys might have participated on the Russian side when this picture was taken. In any case, the age of conscription was probably handled a little more loosely than it would today. Is there any way we can get clarification of the genders of the individuals in the picture? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Library of Congress identified this image. That's a reliable source. Their archivists are among the best in the world. If your question is based upon a scholarly source then a citation would be very interesting; as it is this speculation looks like original research. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are several people in the picture who are clearly women, and I'm happy that they're members of the particular regiment as your source indicates. The statement I'm looking for is that *all* of the people in the photograph are women, which I feel is not unambiguously clear from the photograph alone, and the terse image description doesn't corroborate that claim. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - PLW, the Library of Congress identified this as one of the Russian Army's all female units. It seems you are proposing that this would instead be a mixed unit of women and boys. If you want to suggest that the Russian military organized units that way during World War I, please present a reliable source for the claim. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though suggest tweaking caption The caption describes what this group did, but not what they are doing in the picture, making it somewhat confusing. Stating what they are doing first would help. By the way, PLW, do you know how many women have managed to join the army by cutting their hair and pretending to be men throughout history, fooling everyone in whatever army it was for years and years? Given that, I hardly think "They look like they could be young men" trumps reliable sources that say they aren't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, caption changed as requested. FWIW here's an article that explains female participation in the Russian military during WWI.[1] Durova^Charge! 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article has the image but says they're in a training camp, not at rest between battles as the caption seems to imply. This would explain how fresh and healthy they look compared to other images on the same page, a number of which would be sure-fire FP to me at least.[2][3] It also explains the photographers, the relaxed look, and who the males might be. Both of these images that I link to are haunting, compelling and tell stories far beyond any words that could convey them. I also like the translation on this page, although I have not read the Russian (mine is limited to scientific articles), "Women's Battalion of Death." --Blechnic (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to have to stick with saying this is incompletely sourced. I've made my concerns known, and it seems that it isn't possible to determine that all of the individuals in the picture are members of the regiment, and are female. I'm being offered handwavey arguments whose premise is that because women *can* disguise as boys, if a caption claims that something that looks like a boy is a woman, we have to believe that caption, even if the source doesn't make it clear (which could be done, for example, by identifying the individuals in the picture). That doesn't feel like responsible reporting to me. Durova, I also particularly object to the notion that asking for an unambiguous source constitutes original research. That comment casts a very ugly light on your attitude towards this work of reference. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Um... I'm sorry, but... there is a major history journal, which Durova linked, that says it's the members of the battalion. [4] "Members of the First Petrograd Women's Battalion relaxing at their training camp at Levashovo." What part of "Women's Battalion" do you not understand, or are you simply launching attacks on Durova's character without bothering to read what she actually says and links you to? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes, to put it another way, from what I have read these units were not co-ed, hence the name Women's Battalion, so if there are some women present, most likely they are all women. Fletcher (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that two reliable sources would be enough to settle this, especially since PLW has provided no source for the doubts he expresses. But if no one objects I'd be glad to contact the Russian wikiproject for additional verification that this is an all female unit. I wouldn't want to be accused of canvassing, so posting here first. If no one objects in 24 hours I'll follow up with the project. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the regiment is sitting around, but being visited by the male soldier in the right foreground. I don't understand the point of this issue, though. Is this usually done on FP that one must verify all personnel in an image of a military unit are of that unit? I think that will eliminate all military unit pictures. --Blechnic (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova has commented (paraphrasing) that she believes this image has exceptional EV because it depicts female soldiers. If that is going to be implied by the caption, I'd rather have us make damn sure that it actually shows only female soldiers, or, if not, make it clear which individuals are male. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 10:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me; I made no such comment. I did state that this image would have high EV as Wikipedia's first featured image of World War I's Eastern Front. Surely that's not in doubt. Durova^Charge! 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] [6] I don't think that arguing about the exact interpretation of your statements will do this nomination any favours. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, the unit may be all-female, but the people in the picture may not -> there may be people in this picture who aren't members of the unit. Does that make it clear now? And btw, I still don't see how a request for clarification needs a reference, and stand by my comment that this attitude of yours is unbecoming @Durova. Also, please keep any discussion relating to this picture here. My talk page is not an appropriate place. With that, I'm off on vacation. I expect my oppose to be taken seriously except if we get a reference that presents evidence concerning this photograph specifically, to state unambiguously that there are no men or boys in it, or alternatively, if the captions on this nomination *and* articles (please) are changed to reflect the fact that not all individuals in the picture may be from that unit (something along the lines of, "a camp at which members of WB are present"). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 10:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You attempt to reverse the burden of evidence and demand that I prove a negative, based upon original research for which you provide no scholarly support. I respectfully request that you review WP:NOR and refrain from proceeding this way in future candidacies. Durova^Charge! 10:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Durova on this one Papa, you made an argument which of course has been investigated and refuted and yet you still stick to your oppose and beyond that you are/were borderline attacking those who dare oppose you and on top of that even assuming good faith it seems that you are requesting that the caption state which soldiers and male and which are female which I think most people would see as being unreasonable. Cat-five - talk 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not been refuted. Durova is not able to make a specific claim about *all* the figures in the picture. Based on the available information, all we know is that some of them certainly belong to the women's regiment. It may be the case that Blechnic has meanwhile found the answer, The men are the regular army soldiers at a training camp, training this woman's unit. [7] We seem to have two sets of conjecture here, neither of which can be fully verified. I find that extremely unsatisfactory in terms of verifiability and encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose for although it is an odd and interesting picture, it's not a very coherent composition, neither being a group portrait nor depicting any meaningful activity. A couple soldiers are caught with awkward expressions on their faces. I can accept the reliable source that claims they are indeed women (and I see from Durova's link that the women were intentionally de-feminized in their training), but that one leaning over in the lower right... well, I'm scratching my head about that one. Maybe it's just me, but the pic could be more likely to befuddle our readers than to enlighten. Fletcher (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support This is a high-quality picture. The primary concern raised, that there might be boys in the picture is based on original research borderling on speculation, while we have multiple reliable sources describing the batallion the people in the picture as female. That some of them look tomboyish shouldn't be surprising anyways given the military context. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry Durova, can you clarify the licensing - it says "Restored version of source archival file (which, unfortunately, English Wikipedia hosting rules prevent uploading for easy comparison)." I don't understand how we're not allowed to host the original file, but we seemingly are allowed to host this edited version of it? --jjron (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you can find a way around the dilemma I'll gladly upload the unrestored version (and in the meantime I'll provide it via e-mail or Skyp upon request for candidacy review). I cannot upload this image to Commons because Russia recently changed its copyright law to be more like EU norms; this is pre-1923 PD in the United States but would only be PD in Russia if the photographer could be identified and verified to have died before 1938. English Wikipedia expects image files that it hosts to be used in article space. The original version for this image would not be used in article space. If a reference link to the source file would be sufficient justification for hosting then I'll go ahead. Durova^Charge! 10:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, it was a legit question. I don't particularly care for all the copyright BS as I've expressed before, so have little interest in understanding all the different rules for all the different countries, and thus don't know offhand why you may or not have uploaded files here or at commons, upload one file and not its original, etc. I simply found the information provided on the image page confusing - it certainly doesn't explain what you've explained here. Then there's other files that can be displayed on relevant articles, but not anywhere else (such as userpages, FPC, etc). Shrug. --jjron (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, yours is a really good question. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support per JoshuaZ Fryslan0109 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't' grab me, and the quality isn't good enough to overcome it. 216.183.234.7 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) And that would be me, forgetting I wasn't logged on... again. Clegs (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - been agonizing over this, but what is going on is just too vague for me to support. I wish we had some more specific from a historian, because some of these people look an awuful lot like men. Are the women resting? Are they visiting the men? Dunno, can't tell and no one has the specifics :( pschemp | talk 13:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]