I know nominations like this are controversial, so I will say little and leave it to the community to decide. A high resolution, high quality image received through the image submission system of a notable figure in the U.S. military. It was sent to us by the Public Affairs office at United States Special Operations Command, which I am assuming means that the subject requested the office do something about the fact his article was illustrated with a low resolution shot.
Department of Defense for United States Special Operations Command Public Affairs
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: probably an orchestrated photograph. Snowman (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. What's so bad about that? J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was it photographed for an occasion? Snowman (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no- it was photographed to illustrate his official biography. What's your point? It seems to illustrate him and his character very well. J Milburn (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is great when we get pictures in this way.. featuring is also signalling our pleasure with such contributions GerardM (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's a poor reason to support an FP candidacy. Featuring is awarded entirely on merit, not gratitude. mikaultalk 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per the (good and persuasive) reasons given at the Gates nomination. Though technically good, it tells us very little about his character beyond that he has blue eyes, is a four-star general and wears military fatigues. Cowtowner (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This tells us an awful lot. He's opted for his uniform over a suit (and a very soldiery uniform at that- he doesn't even look like an officer to me- note the caption here) and has clearly opted for a photograph without makeup. He's chosen not to smile, and has chosen to have his hair somewhat scruffy and unmodified. I think it's quite clear the kind of man Olsen is. J Milburn (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is possibly true, but wholly speculative. The same arguments were raised about the Gates nom (small not, no makeup, tight lipped) but they apparently did not stand. I am voting primarily on precedence here. Cowtowner (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's wholly speculative. What do you actually want? One of the reasons I struggle with the opposition to this sort of photograph is that it's not clear what you're looking for- what do you want as an alternative? J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the most commonly cited example was the Obama featured picture versus the Obama official image . The featured one offers much greater insight to the character than the posed one. The same argument could be made here. Personally, I am torn. In many ways I agree with the point you are making, but I'm not convinced that is in line with with FP criteria. Cowtowner (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the candid shot show that is not also "wholly speculative"? There seems to be no relevant differences between the two shots... J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candid shots, by their unposted nature, express the nature of a person more clearly. I don't think there is any mistaking Obama's intensity in the candid shot; this doesn't show through in the other image. Cowtowner (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we have some wholly speculative intensity... Any guesses we make about the nature of a person from their portrait are going to be wholly speculative. I'm still really not seeing it. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything speculative about the intensity seen in Obama here; we are humans, we instinctively recognize emotion and expression. Cowtowner (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you work that out? The emotion in one portrait isn't speculative because we can instinctively recognise emotion, but the emotion in another is speculative? What you're saying is somewhat inconsistent... J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality of a soldier (yes I know his rank) looking properly soldierly. The gates photo is, I think, different in that it's just a bloke in a suit.....could be an insurance salesman. I can't see how we could get a more appropriate photo of him. - Peripitus(Talk) 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mikaul's comments the the Gate nomination. Thank you for linking it Silversmith --H92110 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish we had more portraits of this quality. The quality is much better than the image of Gates. --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Gates aside, I really dislike the lighting, which is harsh. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 07:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Support. This is a high quality portrait. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Satisfies all FP criteria, and highly encyclopedic. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: I don't think portraits should be considered as a FP. Furthermore, the expression on his face shows a lot of stress and tension, even though he's squeezing a smile in it - it's not a refreshing quality picture. Though, the article is pretty good. NoFlyingCars (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth should portraits not be FPs? We have an awful lot of portraits as FPs... J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - technically, it's a fine portrait, and I think we should recognize that it was submitted via the image submission system; hopefully we can encourage more such quality submissions in future. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see the Gates nom has already been cited a couple of times. As I said at the Draper nom above, it can tick all the criterion boxes and still fall well short of representing outstanding content. I don't understand what this portrait offers us that the Gates one didn't, to make it seem to be a worthy candidate. I'm sorry, but neither of them are any more compelling or interesting than a passport photo. mikaultalk 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Nothing special here. I don't see any engagement in the portrait nor much notability in the subject. Maedin\talk 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think that disputing the notability of the subject is a legitimate objection, when Wikipedia has an article about the subject. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, my wording was at fault. Instead of notability, I was referring to EV, I suppose. My intended meaning was that this stiff and formal portrait doesn't tell me much about the subject, and is not engaging enough for FP (in my opinion, of course, I don't expect agreement from all). I see this as a technically proficient photograph with little else on offer. Apologies for not being clear, it was past my bed time! :-) Maedin\talk 15:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --ZooFari 06:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
versus the Obama official image 
. The featured one offers much greater insight to the character than the posed one. The same argument could be made here. Personally, I am torn. In many ways I agree with the point you are making, but I'm not convinced that is in line with with FP criteria. Cowtowner (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
