Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman of Bolivarian Armed Forces in a presidential meeting.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Woman of Bolivarian Armed Forces in a presidential meeting.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 03:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info All by -- The Photographer 03:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Complex facial expression to me. I could speculate on what she might deal with at work, but I will not. Anyway, the expression makes the portrait for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Kan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Difficult shot. Without bullet -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose
The Photographer implicitly accuses this female soldier of illegal acts and that is unfair and probably libelous. I do not like the inflammatory political diatribe by The PhotographerCharles (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC) - Comment In this I have to agree with Charles. Please, do not use FPC as a platform for political statements. This is a forum for discussing photos, and if such depict situations that can be seen as political in any way, the photo usually speaks for itself. --cart-Talk 11:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Totally agree about keeping politics out of FPC. PumpkinSky talk 13:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
OpposeThe photo itself is quite interesting; a portrait of a soldier in uniform always makes you think. On the one hand, they're extensions of a state's power, on the other hand they're individuals with their own thoughts and feelings. It's the reason why movies are being made with the focus on individual soldiers in wars; it's an interesting dive into the human psyche. That said, with the current political statement made in the description and the nomination, I can't support this as an image that may appear on the front page of Commons.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)- Comment In as much as we review the file-description-page as well as the image, this shouldn't be FP per Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. The description cannot contain a political opinion written as though in the editorial voice of Commons. A neutral description of the person and context is required, and leave discussion of politics to the Wikipedia pages where cited facts and quoted opinions belong. Wrt you giving a political reason for taking/publishing the image offered here at FPC, I actually think that is valid: the taking and publishing images for political purpose is a long-standing goal of photography, practised by photojournalists and humanitarian photographers as well as by the military and government employees. I think it is also valid to judge the image on whether it succeeds on that measure. For example: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpg succeeds, IMO, as a world-class political photograph much more so than on technical measures. The danger is of course that our own politics influences voting on such an image, but such is life. I'd support this image if the description page was fixed, as it is a powerful portrait with good expression and bold colours. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Colin: , what do you think that should be changed?. I could add references from ONU, OEA or Admitiría sites to support the description, it was done using Google translator and maybe I'm putting something wrong in double seance that I can't see. Thanks --The Photographer 17:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- The description should stick to what is in the photo. So describe neutrally who this person is, and their role there, and what the event is. The commentary about the country in general, or how the government uses meetings for propaganda, are not aspects of the photo, but just your own editorial, so can't be included on Commons. The symbolism of the red chairs might be relevant if you are quite sure they chose red chairs because of the socialist colour rather than just because they happened to have red chairs. I don't really understand "the red platform was armed in front of the Chiquinquirá Basilica". Commons is not Wikipedia, so even if you have sources, we really need to just stick to describing the picture. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the Spanish, a more correct translation would be "the red platform beleaguered the front of the Chiquinquirá Basilica", but such language is not neutral so please change that too. --cart-Talk 18:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- The description should stick to what is in the photo. So describe neutrally who this person is, and their role there, and what the event is. The commentary about the country in general, or how the government uses meetings for propaganda, are not aspects of the photo, but just your own editorial, so can't be included on Commons. The symbolism of the red chairs might be relevant if you are quite sure they chose red chairs because of the socialist colour rather than just because they happened to have red chairs. I don't really understand "the red platform was armed in front of the Chiquinquirá Basilica". Commons is not Wikipedia, so even if you have sources, we really need to just stick to describing the picture. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Colin: , what do you think that should be changed?. I could add references from ONU, OEA or Admitiría sites to support the description, it was done using Google translator and maybe I'm putting something wrong in double seance that I can't see. Thanks --The Photographer 17:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I have reverted comments about crisis in Venezuela and I would also like to apologize, recently some close relatives have died as a result of the crisis in Venezuela and it is difficult for me to edit without thinking about it, I am not trying to justify myself --The Photographer 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand why this must be hard for you and this is one of the reasons, on Wikipedia, they don't want you to write articles about subjects close you. As a photographer you don't have that luxury but you have to try to stay cool. The important thing is to get the photo out there. Now we can get on with the voting.--cart-Talk 18:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- That goes beyond photography. I'm so sorry for your losses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Support, with the new text, per above. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- per Cart. Photographically it's very good IMHO. PumpkinSky talk 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Vote changed now that we are keeping the political debate out of Commons. The image itself is great: As per my comment above, I feel that such images of military personnel definitely have a place on Commons, as they envoke all sorts of emotion. Images like this one really make the viewer think. "What is the soldier thinking? What is her role in this whole thing? Does she have a family? Is she a state puppet?" On the one hand, soldiers are tools of the state, on the other hand they are people just like the rest of us. Great image to have on Commons, the quality is also very good. As for the personal losses incurred by the 'tog, I am very sorry to hear about that. Stay strong.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support for the woman's expression, per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People