Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg

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

File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 16:11:27
I'll miss you Dad

Btw. I foresee that this will once again be a controversial nomination with many comments, just like the first one... -- JovanCormac 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you don't think the less of me for nominating it Jovan, but believe me, I'm not trying to make a point in favour of, or against the US, warfare, or whatever else one happens to see in this image. To me, the sheer range of reactions and emotions make this picture perfect for FP status; it inspires something in people, whether that reaction is good or bad is up to the viewer. How many featured pictures have we seen pass through this page? 4000? 5000? How many of those have inspired you to write a full paragraph in response? Isn't that what a picture is meant to be? Worth a thousand words? Not arguing with you, merely explaining what I think makes this picture stand out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not at all thinking less of you. And you are right about this being one of the images on FPC which has excited me most, albeit in a negative sense. This picture does elicit strong emotions in everyone: Either compassion for the little girl, or disgust of her being used in war propaganda. And propaganda pictures can be featured, of course, provided that they are of excellent quality, which this one is. The real problem with this photo is that it is a propaganda picture of our times, and its likes are still seeing widespread use. Featuring it might stain our reputation in the eyes of some people, as we are not clearly distancing ourselves from it; in fact, we cannot, since whether the image actually is propaganda may be a point of disagreement. When we feature, say, Soviet propaganda pictures, or those from WWII, no one can seriously believe that we do it for any other reason than their historical value. This is not the case here, as this picture isn't history yet. It is for this reason, and because of the picture's highly ambiguous nature, that our "always on"-policy of NPOV is insufficient here. Simply featuring this picture, without an explicit inscription of neutrality about its contents, falls just short of a political statement. However, and this is the crux, putting it in the "Propaganda" category is a political statement as well! IMO, this picture is simply too controversial to be displayed in our "showcase", Featured Pictures. -- JovanCormac 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Making something a featured picture is not making a political statement, it is simply saying that the image meets certain artistic and technical standards. I would gladly support an image like this one of a Lebanese women crying after her vilage had been bombed by the Israelis (if it were of good enough quality), even though it could easily be used as a propaganda image. When it comes to images NPOV is not refusing to feature images that contain a certain sentiment, it is being willing to allow images from both sides to be featured if they meet the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]