Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg
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
- Info created by Technical Sergeant Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., USAF - uploaded by Smokizzy - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Info This image is one of the most moving I've come across in my journeys through the huge library that is Commons. The emotionally charged subject and multiple interpretations of the image in my opinion excuse the (perhaps sub-optimal) crop. This image has been nominated previously and failed by the slimmest of margins (1 vote in it!).
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This picture should be properly categorized as a propaganda image, for it is blatantly obvious that that's precisely what it is. I consider it certain that this picture is staged, and that disgusts rather than moves me, to be honest. The label ("I'll Miss You Dad") does the rest. I cannot find any reason for opposing it in our guidelines, so I will simply abstain from voting, but I am sure that future generations of Commoners will find that it belongs with File:AntiJapanesePropagandaTakeDayOff.gif, rather than with File:Dodd daughter.jpg. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I didn't think Commons had a NPOV policy? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You're right, it doesn't. Still can't help feeling the way I do, though... -- JovanCormac 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per JovanCormac, but oppose due to distracting person in background. Julielangford (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - crop. Jonathunder (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support It may be staged, but life is a big theater, so... Yann (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per my reasoning above. Also I find nothing wrong with the quality. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks staged, and fake. This is certainly a propaganda image. And that should be stated. This can be featured only as obvious example of US army propaganda. If this appear on main page, that has to be mention in the caption. "US military propaganda image called I'll miss you dad: Child holds on tight to her dad's leg while saying goodbye to him. Her father deployed to Southwest Asia for six months in support of OEF and OIF." --Lošmi (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agreed with Jovan and Julielangford --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lošmi. --AM (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor framing, distracting background. Would be more inclined to support if not taken by a pro. --ianaré (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jovan. Cacophony (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Commons does not have a NPOV policy, politics should not matter in this discussion. I agree with Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, this image will generate a reaction one way or the other exactly what a FP should. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Julielangford, ianaré and other opposers. -- MJJR (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As last time. Lycaon (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Tiptoety talk 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Ks0stm (T•C) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per ianaré. —kallerna™ 09:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. --Karel (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results: