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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.[edit]

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. Military brats can experience long periods of separation from their military parents.
Reason
A great photo that really captures the emotion of deployment.
Articles this image appears in
Military brat (U.S. subculture)
Creator
Signaleer
Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., TSgt, USAF (image from US Defense Information School) (creator corrected, as per discussion below)
  • Support as nominator — Smokizzy (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted Support As an image, this is a beautiful, emotive work. But should we censor the girl's name (or keep it just on the image page) out of respect for her privacy? Adam Cuerden talk 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Illustrates the article perfectly. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 16:24Z
  • Comment Umm, WHAT!? doesn't realesing photos of this kind of minors require parental consent of some kind. Plus, why is the picture called "I'll miss you daddy" surly that isn't a discriprive image title. Since the picture is PD it isn't as if the author needs to be stuck in the image title as well. Touching picture but c'mon. The title, description, caption all seem a bit contrived. -Fcb981 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the title and caption of the photograph as given by the photographer... In the words of a caveman, "Yeah, next time, maybe do a little research..." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 16:35Z
      • Oppose I belive it is time for me to offer my opposeition. In the words of me, "I dont care what the photographer named it because he has no rights to this picture and this is an encyclopedia and for all we not that girl will not miss her dad, and I doubt the subjects leg is the author's father." -Fcb981 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That made no sense whatsoever. Can you try explaining again??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 20:34Z
          • Sorry. :/ when I said "for all we not" I meant "for all we know". On reading it again I myself can bearly make heads or tails of it. I'll just leave it at per below. \ -Fcb981 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on a number of grounds. For starters I quite like the photo, it's cute, artistically done, fairly well lit (although there's probably too much blown out highlights even for me, especially on the ground and the girl's dress) and generally well composed (other than the bit of cut off feet on the soldier and bear). However, this is an encyclopaedia and I don't find the encyclopaedic value that high. I share Fcb's concerns with the file name - I don't care if that's what the photographer named it; it should be renamed to something more appropriate for Wikipedia. Additionally, as Adam said, the girl's name, and for that matter the soldier's name, should be removed - given that they are not publicly notable figures, the names do not belong in an encyclopaedia, consent or not. --jjron 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your main objections are to the caption and filename? That's fixed easily enough. As for the encyclopedic value, do you not believe it illustrates the article Military brat very well? To me, it seems perfect for that article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 17:57Z
  • No, my main objections are to it being unencyclopaedic - as you said the other things could (and should) be easily fixed up. You say it illustrates the article perfectly, which is fine as your opinion. But for me, when I hear the term 'military brat', I don't think of a cute little kid like this, so to me it does not illustrate the article all that well. It's just all too cutesy. Also I honestly doubt that a child this age would even comprehend the notion of her father going away for six months (according to the caption), so I don't find it especially accurate or NPOV (sure she'd understand her dad was going away, but not in the way the caption suggests). --jjron 09:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It illustrates the article perfectly, and aren't descriptive filenames encouraged? —« ANIMUM » 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, descriptive filenames are encouraged - but this is not descriptive of the photo, it's descriptive of the photographer and his POV. --jjron 09:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I fixed the caption within the article as per this suggestion. vlad§inger tlk 02:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, the caption in the article is actually better than the (already) altered caption here. I wonder about the 'holds on tight' though; it's not what I'd call holding on tight. --jjron 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the grip of her hand. That's what the text is referring to. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:04Z
I realise that's what it's referring to but you could just as easily use that argument to caption the picture 'child holds on tight to her teddy bear'. To me holding on tight to the leg would be something like hugging it with both arms. I really don't even think her grip on his pants is even that tight. --jjron 06:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak conditional support - It does illustrate an important part of the life of a young military brat, so I think the enc is OK. I wish the soldier's boots hadn't been cut off, as that's distracting to the composition. I'm still OK with it, though, as it strikes a good balance of showing great emotion without being too maudlin. Conditional on changing to a more standard, encyclopedic, and anonymous image name. --TotoBaggins 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the tight cropping makes it more personal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 19:47Z
    • The name is changed easily enough, to what though? Smokizzy (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Military brat farewells father' or something like that; removes the unnecessary details of author and POV. --jjron 07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't understand the name change. It's not one of the FP criteria, and the name exactly references the photograph and creator. Should we change Image:The Scream.jpg to Image:Expressionist painting of individual screaming.jpg? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 18:36Z
      • The reason it is different is that a scan of the Scream is to illustrate the painting the Scream whereas here we are using the image to illustrate military brat rather than the photo "I'll Miss You Dad" which has no notability on its own. Debivort 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree completely. It may not be the name we pick, but photos are pieces of art and this is the name given by the artist. If the artist has named a piece of work, it is not in WP's pervue to rename said piece of work.Balloonman 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're making an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. If the name is unencyclopedic, and it is within the license to change it, we should! Debivort 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't matter if we technically have the right to, morally I would object. If an author writes a short story, it is up to said author to give it a name. If an artist draws a picture, it is up to the artist to name it. It is inappropriate for us to rename a piece of work... it is also unencyclopedic to do so. The photographer gave the name. It is the name.Balloonman 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • "morally"? what silliness. If the author had titled the image "lamer little crybaby can't let go of daddy --- USA r0XX0rZ FTW!!" would you still protect the picture name? What if they had titled it "IMG_3681.JPG?" Let's keep our eye on the ball here. We're writing an encyclopedia. Debivort 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nice mature response. The fact is that the author DID NOT name it "lamer little crybaby can't let go of daddy --- USA r0XX0rZ FTW!!" But even if they did, there are books/news articles/etc that I don't like. An encyclopedic is to preserve the facts as presented. The fact is that this picture has a name---period. It is not our place to change the name.Balloonman 03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I absolutely agree with Debivort. I actually had a good laugh at your moral opposition. The author took the picture as part of their duties as a government employee. This is the same thing as taking a photo on assginment for the united states. Therefor, as a U.S. citizen, I have as many moral rights to this as the photographer. I want it named: "shmargusbargindeeder.jpg"... And while not mature, my response illistrates the reason why the name should be changed. As mentioned by debivort, Photos (without notability on their own) should always have a descriptive image title that reflects the subject matter in an NPOV way. This is common sense, otherwise it will be near impossible to find images by running searches. -Fcb981 05:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think you make a very GOOD point, that completely undermines your argument. But herein lies the problem. We choose to rename it. The New York Times picks up on the picture, they decide to rename it. People Magazine pick up on the photo and they choose to rename it. Before long, nobody knows what the name of the picture is because everybody has renamed it and nobody can find it because it now has a dozen name. Of course, I don't think this would ever happen. People Magazine and NY Times wouldn't rename it. It was given a name, if people are going to look for it in the future, they need to know what the original name was.Balloonman 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and I'd like to see the title changed.Debivort 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have no problem with the feet and bear being cut off; they're not the subject of the photo. Also, with respect to hesitation about disclosing information about the subject, see here. Spikebrennan 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I really do not see any encyclopedic value in this photograph. What does it illustrate? A sad girl hugging a soldier's leg. And what exactly does that add to the article? It's a very nice picture, but I haven't been enlightened as a featured picture should do. I don't find it NPOV either. Is this what we want to illustrate the "average" military brat? J Are you green? 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been explained repeatedly, it illustrates the article Military brat perfectly, by showing the child, and her relationship to the military parent. Can you explain the POV that you believe is being presented in this image? What would you suggest could be a better illustration of the "average" military brat? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 20:27Z
      • Exactly how can you generalise from this particular photograph to all military brats? Just because this girl, a military brat, has a certain relationship with her father does not mean that the concept of a military brat is defined by the emotions that this girl experiences and that this photograph illustrates so well. Perhaps there is no better way to illustrate the "average" military brat, but that does not justify showing the emotions of this particular girl and extending it to the much broader concept of a military brat. J Are you green? 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstood me. A simple picture of a kid who happens to be a military brat is not encyclopedic, because you have no way of knowing the kid is the child of a military person. That's why this image is better, because all of that information is contained in the image. You said the image is not neutral and that it is not typical of the "average" military brat. Please explain both of these claims. "Military brat" just means the kid of a military person, and this image shows all of that. Whether or not there is some emotion in the picture is of no consequence, and indeed any picture of a person is going to show some sort of emotion, so I don't see the point of your rambling. Explain how it's not neutral, and what you meant by "Is this what we want to illustrate the "average" military brat?" — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 22:43Z
          • I appear to not have answered your questions in the abover rambling, so I'll ramble some more :). It's very hard to use quantitative arguments to prove a picture biased or neutral, and in the end it boils down to my opinion. I feel like I'm looking at a piece of propaganda, like I should sympathise for her and her father's sacrifice and and stick a ribbon on my window. I know that it's not a satisfactory argument, but that's not the main reason for my oppose. When I questioned the use of this picture to represent the "average" military brat, I was questioning whether this picture is really about showing what a military brat is. I really like Svetovid's comment about it being like illustrating a vegetarian with a picture of one. This picture shows the emotions of having a parent leave home. So? Does every military brat have this particular experience? Is having this particular experience what defines a military brat? Since I find the answer of both of these to be no, I find it not illustrative of a military brat. It's like showing that vegetarian eating a carrot. Do some vegetarians eat carrots? Yes. Do a disproportionate number eat carrots as compared to the populace? Yes. Does being a carrot eater make a person a vegetarian? No. I might take a picture of a vegetarian eating a carrot and label it "vegetarian" much as the soldier labels this child a military brat. It could be perfectly true, but I don't find it encyclopedic or illustrative of the "average" military brat. J Are you green? 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who said that only "an average" picture could have encyclopedic value? Isn't it other way around? Shuld not be the picture special in some way to have the value? What do you know about military brats at all? Are you one of them? Do you have a freind, who is a military brat? What is so wrong with the sympathizing with the girl and her father, but please, relax, I'm sure she will do just fine without your sympathy. The picture has nothing to do with propaganda. I do see propoganda in your comment --Mbz1 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
            • I think you are throwing up a red herring. There is no such thing as an average military brat, but there are experiences which are typical of military life. Having one's parent deployed for extended periods IS a very typical life.Balloonman 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not advocating the institution of a picture depicting the "average" military brat. Rather, I question how encyclopedic this one is because it focuses entirely on how the girl feels at her father's departure. Anyone (military brat or not) would feel the same in this situation. I don't deny that this experience is part of typical life for a military brat, but calling this picture illustrative of a military brat is taking a far too broad idea from a specific concept that may or may not be experienced by a military brat or an ordinary person. When I look at the picture, I don't see the girls face as showing what it means to be a military brat; I see her face showing the emotion that might be expected of anyone whose parent was leaving. Quite simply, I am not informed of anything about military brats by looking at this picture. And, to Mbz1, of course my comments (and yours, and everybody else's) are propaganda - I wouldn't bother giving a reason for my oppose if it weren't to clarify my opinions in the hope that somebody else might be able to see the situation more clearly. J Are you green? 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support How can someone oppose something that cute??? I see no abberations, but here at FPC, people generally do make a mountain out of a molehill — a molehill not visible to the casual eye that reads wikipedia. Also per Brian0918. —« ANIMUM » 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure if you blanked a page and stuck a dr seuss story on there, no matter how cute, it would be reverted as vandalism. Same Idea. Also, I find this picture more emotional and a bit sad than cute. This girl may never see her father again: oh, how cute. (sarcasm) -Fcb981 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - not encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not encyclopædic? Have you even read the above discussion? —« ANIMUM » 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or you? There are two sides in the above discussions. J Are you green? 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. I don't think it's possible to illustrate something like a military brat. It's like wanting to picture a vegetarian with one image of one particular person.--Svetovid 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose all we see are the soldiers legs, I'm sure we've all seen photos of a child saying farewell to a soldier father, but this one looks too generic, and image has no time, date or location. Bleh999 23:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check here for more details. Smokizzy (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Link didn't work for me Bleh999 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once there, click "Photographer of the Year"-->"Second Runner-Up"-->picture "4". Smokizzy (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What does this tell me about military brats per se. All it tells me is that this girl is sad to see her daddy leave. I don't need a picture to tell me that most girls love their fathers. The picture is nice enough but it's not informative in any way hence it fails criterion #5. --D. Monack | talk 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all girls see their fathers leave for war; that's the difference. The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:03Z
      • Whether or not this is the best image to illustrate the article is irrelevant here. The best possible image is not necessarily an FP. As for this image illustrating the emotional connection between fathers and daughters, that should be obvious to anyone with parents. What does this image show that I didn't know before? Absolutely nothing. It's powerful because of the emotion involved but it isn't edifying at all which is what encyclopedia images should be and is an important criterion for all featured pictures. --D. Monack | talk 01:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose has technical, emotive and artistic merit, but utterly unencyclopedic. —Pengo 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:03Z
  • Oppose At the risk of being flamed, to be honest I find it corny and hence not Wikipedia's best work. (Compare it with today's stunning Ansel Adams POTD, also of a child in a difficult circumstance, and there is no question that this is not in the same league IMHO.) Also there is the question of whether this image was fabricated (as for the FPC of the Pakistani girl getting water a couple of months ago) Spebudmak 06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's corny about it? It's not supposed to be cute. It's a tragic illustration of the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:03Z
      • No, knowing absolutely nothing about military brats, I can't, but that doesn't mean that this image should be featured. Not every article needs a photo and not every subject has an image that should necessarily be featured. And I think it would be kind of corny even without the teddy bear. It's not like I don't sympathize with whatever this family is going through, but the cheap symbolism of the teddy bear just puts it over the top for me. Spebudmak 02:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I don't understand the need to repeat the phrase "That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you?" six (6) seperate times in the same FPC. Spebudmak 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This photo stands out and would be a great featured photo. 76.2.89.36 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPs do not have suffrage. Please log in. MER-C 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I saw this when it was first posted, and did not comment or vote until now because I was undecided. My decision has become: It's a visually stunning picture; artistically more than worthy of FP. However, that is only enough on Commons - where I think it should easily win FP status. That little girl to me does not successfully illustrate the article. Some articles do not have a great image that can illustrate it; print encyclopedias do not actually have photographs with every article for reasons other than just printing cost. Also, we have a much wider viewership than the military photo contest website. I do not approve of posting the girl's name. Zakolantern 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name was removed at the beginning of this FPC. Smokizzy (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the image fail to illustrate the article? The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:00Z
  • Support My sole concern (aside from the fact that the girl's name still appears in the caption used in the article) is encyclopedic value, but I think it's definitely there. The picture itself is beautiful and tragic (I disagree with these assessments of "cute"). It was a bit of a close call at first, but the more I look at it and think about it, the more I feel this is worthy of being featured. -- Kicking222 22:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above. 8thstar 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not quite decided yet, but I'd like to comment on what's causing my indecision and perhaps some of the opposes above. I think the picture is powerful, technically sufficient (but shame about the cutoffs), and encyclopedic. My problem is that I feel like a voyeur intruding on a little girl's (possibly final) goodbye to her daddy. The fact that she's not looking at him, but at us, only heightens my feeling that the photographer has violated her personal space and interrupted an extremely personal and emotional time. To me, that's not the "best" thing Wikipedia has to offer. My indecision is caused by not knowing how much I'm simply reading into the picture (being the father of a girl about that age). Matt Deres 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No real encyclopedic value. Picture is nowhere near unique. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uniqueness is not one of the Featured Picture criteria. It simply has to be an excellent example of the article in question (Military brat). The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 14:56Z
      • You have to use your imagination to draw that from this picture, I didn't see much of an emotional connection when a man is patting a young girl on the head and he is cut out of the photograph. Do people usually take photographs of their family with one member partially cut out? There is a famous photo from WW2 of a Canadian boy saying farewell to his father literally marching off to war, that one has excellent composition, this one is a snapshot anyone can take therefore very generic, good for the article perhaps but I didn't think it was special. Bleh999 15:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm going with my first instinct here, and say I'm tired of contemporary US Military government propaganda as FP. On Wikipedia, neutrality is primary. Promoting any group's propaganda as encyclopedic content seems unwise, especially when it's presented with such an unquestioning adoring caption. Note that I'm using the word propaganda in the literal sense, not meaning "something the bad evils want us to think that's not true". Propaganda can be True. But it's still propaganda, and I think it's best to simply steer clear of it until we have some —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makemi (talk • contribs).
    • How is it propaganda? What goal is it trying to accomplish? Should we defeature the several propaganda pictures/posters that we currently have featured? To put it simply, your objection rationale is absurd. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 14:54Z
      • Makemi, the image is not a propaganda in any way - your comment is.--Mbz1 19:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
        • The image attempts to gain sympathy for the US solders and their families. I don't see the US military taking photos of Iraqi insurgents' children. I also don't understand how the comment itself could be considered propaganda or what relevance there is if it was. Please explain. —Pengo 06:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is hard to explain. Everybody could have their own opinion. The girl's father is not going to Iraq. He's going to South East Asia to teach local people there how to fight terrorists, who kill innocent civilians. Do you have something against the war on terror? What is wrong with the sympathy for the soldiers, who risk their life to fight terror? Remember the soldiers have not started the war. They only follow the orders. So in my opinion the image has nothing to do with propaganda (and once again it is only my opinion), but because in my opinion the image has nothing to do with propaganda, if somebody says that the image is a propaganda, his/her comment sounds as propaganda to me. I wish very, very much that we could have lived in the world, where no soldiers are needed, but I'm afaid it is not going to happen in a near future.By the way I really do not believe that the comment :"US military taking photos of Iraqi insurgents' children" is fair one. I hope you agree that it is very hard for US military to find Iraqi insurgents themselves, leave alone their kids. Yet I wish very much that instead of fighting people all over the world started taking pictures ot other people kids. Don't see it is going to happen any time soon.--Mbz1 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
            • Please read the caption properly before replying like this: it says "Her father deployed to Southwest Asia for six months in support of OEF and OIF". Note it says Southwest Asia (not Southeast as you claim), and that he's going for OIF, i.e., Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't really care about the 'propaganda' argument that's come up (personally I'd tend to feel it's not really propaganda, I oppose for other reasons), but you need to get your facts right. BTW, it's also rather contentious whether Afghanistan (where he is presumably going for OEF) is part of Southwest Asia according to the article, which is yet another problem with the caption. --jjron 08:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as page's principle author. To answer the question about how is this photo representative of military brats... that is simple. The article goes into more details, but the lead reads, "This group is shaped by frequent moves, absence of a parent, [...] the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit." Extended deployments are a part of life in a military family as is the threat of loss. As for not seeing more of the military member---the picture isn't about the military person, but the child.Balloonman 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The artistic value of images is not important here, if you want to illustrate an emotional bond between two people they should generally both be visible - therefore the encyclopedic value of this image is degraded and this image is 100% reproducible. Bleh999 15:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who said that it was illustrating and emotional bond between TWO people---it is capturing the emotion of the child---which is the subject of the picture and the article. I find that the parent isn't visible accentuates the message of the parent's absence!Balloonman 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is a great image with a very big value. --Mbz1 18:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Oppose per Svetoid. It should do well on Commons. ~ Veledan • Talk 01:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. I would cast a support vote on Commons though. BTW, I find it curious that nearly every oppose vote has some sort of rebuttal. Cacophony 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's usually how discussions work, people talk to eachother... Unfortunately FPC has been sorely lacking in that respect, to the point that we now have comments like yours. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-15 11:19Z
      • I dont participate at RfA but i have sen a few noms and they are nothing like this. Even most noms here dont have this kind of argument. I also agree with rebuttals, I respond to Opposers in my noms but at this point it seems a bit much. it isn't as if most of these concerns all the way down here havent been addresed farther up. -Fcb981 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-15 11:22Z
          • I'll grant you that it does a fantastic job of showing "the emotional connection between the child and father", but how is that unique to being a military brat? Only a very small percentage of military brats (throughout history) have had to deal with a parent being sent off to war, and even then it is only for a relatively short period of their childhood. What is a much bigger part of life for ALL millitary brats is the transient nature of that lifestyle, having to move just when you start making close friends. Or the homogenous lifestyle that is associated with being raised by enlisted parents close to a base in a highly disiplined household. Or having to live within a sub-cluture within the military brat sub-cluture. Just because the picture does a better job of illustrating it than some images do does not mean that it has high encyclopedic value. An image can be emotionally engaging without adding value to an encyclopedia article and that is why I would vote for it on commons, where the encyclopedic value is not considered. Cacophony 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree... some of the ad hominem attacks here (from both supporters and opposers) is ridiculous... people (on both sides) are attacking the people who are making a comment, rather than addressing the questions/concerns.Balloonman 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Low enc (thegreenj summed it up nicely above), and ack Cacophony about the rebuttals they are actually bordering on personal attacks. --Dschwen 11:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images involving in progress conflicts will always be contentious issues, that's why I prefer historical photographs. Besides I still think this image is a privacy violation, even if the girls parents agreed to it. Bleh999 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Low encyclopedic value Mahahahaneapneap 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I noticed there hasn't been nearly such a big stink whenever the myriad dead soldier or child soldier pictures have come up for FP. Why aren't those considered "propaganda"? This image is encyclopedic in that it shows another facet of military life. -- Grandpafootsoldier 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between an image of a dead soldier from 142 years ago and an image of a young girl alive today, personality rights mean you can only use such images in a certain way regardless of copyright, including how you use it endorse certain views or products Bleh999 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess anything that doesn't portray the US military as murderers is "propaganda". 8thstar 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This clearly isn't propaganda to me. I could see it being used by either pro or anti-war people. I.e. "Honor the sacrifice of our military and their families" or "Please don't harm military families by sending them off to an unjustified war." Hard to call something propaganda when it has no clear bias. Debivort 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't agree more. This picture could be just as easily used to show the horrors of war and military life. In the article it is currently being used in does not glamorize military life.Balloonman 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very emotional, very expression-strongly and just a marvellous composition. --FSHL 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeI think I'm going to go with my first instinct as well.--Mad Max 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for the record. Fits all our criteria. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do we know that the image was taken or made during the course of Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., TSgt, USAF official duties? The MILPHOG 2007 Standard Operating Procedures link is not does not seem to be working to confirm this. I found the MILPHOG SOP for 2006, but could not confirm that the contest only accepted photos taken by military personnel as part of their official duties. Signaleer skedaddled on June 22, 2007 (posting, adios suckers!) so we can't ask him. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jreferee, in the PDF you linked, under II. Eligibility, it clearly states:

      A. The VIAP competitions are open to Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard enlisted personnel of the five Armed Services holding the MOS, rating, NEC, or AFSC of photographer, journalist, photojournalist, videographer, broadcaster, graphic artist, mass communication specialist or equivalent. Members who leave the Armed Forces during the year may compete as long as the material submitted was completed in its entirety while on active duty or in a Reserve or National Guard status.

      Hope that helps. Smokizzy (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I added the info to the photo page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which also begs the question of why Signaleer is listed in the nomination as the creator, unless he is also Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr. - and I can see no indication that he is. Ideas anyone? --jjron 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • jjron, my fault. Signaleer uploaded the picture, and I assumed "creator" meant "uploader". Change it if you like. Smokizzy (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, done. --jjron 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Quadell. The image conveys what daughters anywhere would feel as their father is getting ready to go away. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, while I was fixing the creator, I went and checked the original image again. Seems the original filename was, and I quote: 10237_060612-F-3961R-063.jpg. Below the picture is the photographer's name and the caption that Signaleer has made into the filename here on Wikipedia. Rather negates all that nonsense argument above not changing the filename because it's a piece of art, etc, don't you think? --jjron 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the file name, not the photo name. File names are often formatic, but if you hold the cursor above the picture, you will clearly see the name of the photo... as it is also identified as "I'll miss you dad" in the caption. It is not identified as 10237_060612-F-3961R-063.jpg.Balloonman 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (added sig, it wasn't meant to be anonymous, just forgot to sign, FWIW it happens.)[reply]
        • You (Balloonman anonymously FWIW) are talking about the alt-text. It's a weak argument. Hold your cursor over a picture on Wikipedia and you'll get the picture's caption as the alt-text - should we therefore rename filenames to match their caption here, or vice-versa? Sure "I'll miss you dad" is the photo's caption on the original site, as I already said, but the argument above is about the filename, and the original filename is 10237_060612-F-3961R-063.jpg. Therefore there is no logical reason not to give it a meaningful filename on Wikipedia, without the POV and author that Signaleer gave it. If you are really that hung up about it, you could add the "I'll miss you dad" to the caption here. --jjron 08:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The filename is NOT the name the photographer gave it. The filename fits a format/coding system that the government utilizes. But it is known by the name given to it by the photographer. Short of fraud/misrepresentation, I doubt if there is anything that convince me that it is appropriate to change the name of a published piece of work given to that piece of work by the creator of that piece of work. If we were dealing with a picture a wikipedian took, then no problem, but when the picture is published and named, then the published name should stick.Balloonman 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but you are making little sense. You are saying that the filename it had on its originating website is irrelevant, but the filename it now has is untouchable, and by some massive leap of logic, that that was in fact its real original filename. How do you know this? You only know the original caption. You also want this sacred name retained as the filename, which very few users will ever actually see, but are perfectly happy not to include it in the caption, which users will in fact be reading. To be honest, what you are arguing above seems to defy the rules of Wikipedia, and, to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, suggests that this image shouldn't be here at all (BTW I'm not claiming this is the case, simply following your argument through). Have a good day. --jjron 09:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • anywhere? really? And do we need a picture to illustrate that?--Svetovid 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cut off boots, cut off leg of the bear, and a little overexposed on those legs. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "cut off" argument only applies to the subject of the article. Neither the boots nor the bear are the subject of the article. This would be like having an insect sitting on a branch and opposing because the whole branch isn't shown. Also, as others have argued, the close-cutting adds to the image, more-so than the reduction of value from not being able to see the complete tread pattern at the bottom of a boot, or all the toes of a stuffed animal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 18:59Z
  • Not necessarily. If the voter feels that this affects the overall composition then it's quite valid (Criterion 1). For example, a closeup of a lizard last week was opposed by some voters mainly because of a distracting grass blade or something at the edge of the picture, even though it didn't cut across or affect the actual subject. And for mine, I regard the bear as integral to the girl (i.e., it adds context to the girl), therefore part of the subject anyway. I don't buy the 'close-cutting' argument either - it's not like he's asking for the whole soldier, we're talking about an extra few centimetres at the bottom and right (in real life measurements) for a cleaner overall composition.
BTW, I only bring all this up because I'm sick of every opposer of this picture being challenged and harangued about it; as someone said earlier on, he feared being flamed for opposing. It's pretty sorry if people are being frightened off from voting or giving their opinion because of this harrassment. It's almost like some people have some sort of personal reasons for wanting to see this promoted, rather than simply thinking that it is an appealing, high quality, encyclopaedic image. This is reminding me of the sad Wikipe-tan nomination last year, with the nature of the repeated challenges of anyone who happens to oppose. --jjron 09:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop characterizing the replies to opposers (many of which are mine) as being part of a flamewar. It's called discussion. If they care to explain their rationale further, and listen to my reply, then I can understand their view better. Nobody is forcing them to read replies to their votes (and indeed most of my replies seem to have been ignored), so this "fear" cannot be of much substance. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-20 12:53Z
  • Support. The debate around this thing has gone through the roof, as if it were a hot-button political debate. Discussions are fine, but it'd be nice to keep them less personal. As an American, I don't find it to be propaganda--it's a fact that there are military brats, soldiers going off to fight and leaving their children behind, etc. no matter how you feel about the whys and hows (in fact I could see where both sides argue that it's propaganda for the other). If I lived in a country where the military was a more minor aspect of citizenship, maybe I'd feel differently (and be even more compelled to click on the article to learn more about the concept of a military brat). And I think the composition (including cut-off) and technical aspects are fine; I wouldn't say no to a little more sharpening for encyclopedic value, as soft focus trades off more for artistic value, nor to cropping a bit of the left side out for balance, but it's fine. --Peter 20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/I%27ll_Miss_You_Dad_by_Cecilio_M._Ricardo_Jr.&oldid=1136093250"