Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Humanitarian Aid in Pakistan

Humanitarian Aid in Pakistan
"The 2005 Pakistan earthquake was one of the most devastating earthquakes in modern history, registering 7.6 on the Richter scale and killing more than 75,000 people. The disaster triggered a worldwide humanitarian aid effort, with governments, international and non-governmental organizations providing relief in the form of money, rescue equipment and military and civilian personnel."
 * Reason:Swiped from Commons, a powerful picture depicting humanitarian aid, in particular the international response to the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. There are some blown highlights in the background (the light areas in the foreground seem mostly ok), but I don't think that detracts from the overall quality of the picture. Proposed PotD caption:
 * Feel free to edit.


 * Articles this image appears in:International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Humanitarian aid
 * Creator:U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Mike Buytas
 * Nominator: trialsanderrors

MER-C 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; trialsanderrors 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support shows the good side of human nature Ahadland 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Granted, it's a sweet picture, but that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it. --Mad Max 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a good picture but I have mixed feelings about the message it conveys. The young girl doesn't seem to need help drinking from the bottle, so the image looks contrived. I'd also prefer a picture which does more to challenge stereotypes of what aid is about. Kla'quot 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Corny, fabricated, and POV far beyond that of the Iraqi Leaders' Playing Card set. Spebudmak 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed PotD caption seems a bit off-base here, all I see in this image is an attempt by the U.S. Defense Department to change its image in Muslim countries. Spebudmak 06:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It might not be intentional image-fluffing, but to many non-Americans it will come across that way. Kla'quot 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually left out any reference to the US Army and stressed the international effort on purpose. I have grave doubt these issues would come up if this was a picture by the Finnish military. ~ trialsanderrors 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I applaud your efforts to lessen the emphasis on this being US military, but it would be impossible to show this picture without mentioning the the US military. Perhaps this problem wouldn't come up if it was the Finnish military, but the Finnish military don't have an recent appalling record of media manipulation. —Pengo 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment seems to be quite uninformed, at least regarding the picture at hand. From all I can tell it's one is a series of at least three (others here and here). All the other pictures I've seen by Mike Buytas from the Pakistan assignment are situational snapshots, so I find no evidence that this one was staged. I'm certainly no friend of the U.S. foreign policy of the last couple of years, but that doesn't keep me from looking at the U.S. military image repositories for high quality shots. I'm also not religious, but that wouldn't keep me from nominating religious motives for FP if they are of high quality. If you can't put your POV aside and focus on the image quality then I recommend you don't particpiate in FPC. ~ trialsanderrors 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia readers have POVs too. What I'm trying to say, and perhaps what others are trying to say too, is that putting this image on the Main Page would probably backfire. The first thing I did when I saw the picture, before reading anything, was click on it. Then I noticed the U.S. flag on the woman's uniform and said to myself, "Oh sheesh, military P.R." This was, I emphasize, before reading a single word about where the picture came from. To me it just has an air of "P.R. photo" about it. Other readers will probably react the same way. Kla'quot 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that sources, which includes images, have to be without POV (remember that Neutral Point of View does not equal No Point of View). They just can't unduly amplify viewpoints of small minorities. The FP criterion is accuracy, and I have seen no support for the claim that this image is staged. Also, some people here need to read the propaganda article, because the word doesn't mean what they think. ~ trialsanderrors 10:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I did just that, before dropping the "p" word, and to me it fits the definition. Spebudmak 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I wanted to support, as I think the POV argument is silly... of course the U.S. wants a better image... but, it was still an important part of the response... and nothing says an image in itself has to be neutral... only a page. But... it's just too grainy (Army lady's hair + Pakistani girl's face). gren グレン 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * weak support I strongly disagree that this shot appears fabricated, nor do I think its conception was first and foremost intended to propagandize the US relief effort. There is a spontaneity to the shot which is unmistakable; if it was set up, it was set up badly, with faces half-obscured; do we also imagine that the tear running down the child's cheek was somehow fabricated? The image is powerful, rather than cutesy, charged with emotion and compassion. Cynical responses to the caption, however, I can well understand. I would agree totally with trialsanderrors that the caption should reflect the wider humanitarian message which the image clearly conveys and would support cutting out the US military "branding" completely. With the caption thus amended I would change to full support without hesitation. mikaul 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * commentThe grain and noise is noted, and while not totally irrelevant, it's not bad enough to influence my support. This sort of image need not be technically perfect in order to achieve its primary function. mikaul 10:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The image caption (as opposed to the PotD caption) is the original from the photo and can of course be edited to apply to the article it's posted in. ~ 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does it look like the girl has a number 2 on her forehead? Is it just on the picture? Is it for identification, so she doesn't get lost? Mak (talk)  16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon, when there's a risk of families being separated, to make some kind of identifying mark on kids' foreheads in case they get lost. I remember reading a report of a kid turning up at a Pakistani hospital with a cellphone number scrawled on her forehead, her parents later discovered to be in another hospital 200 miles away. mikaul 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could we put a note to that effect in the caption? I see I wasn't the only one wondering what the "2" stood for. Asiir 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Captions are free to edit. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Not for political reasons or any POV bias, which I also find a little silly. Just because the quality is not good enough though the composition and human expressions are great - Alvesgaspar 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a noise reduced edit, although the difference is probably only visible when the pictures are enlarged. ~ trialsanderrors 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | Found a larger version. ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Propaganda photo. —Pengo 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lighting through their hair is distracting, other quality problems. "Propoganda photo" and "POV" are ridiculous reasons for opposing. --⁪frotht 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I'm shocked that some of you are opposing because you think it's a "propoganda photo." If we cut every photo that sent a message, there would be no more photos on wikipedia. --Iriseyes 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Shocked? First of all, there is no question that this is propaganda by definition, given that its source is a U.S. Army press release on the Army website.  Also, (unlike Finland) the U.S. government is clearly involved in an active campaign to change the way it is perceived in Muslim countries, e.g. the State Department report discussed in this CNN article (admittedly old but the first thing I found on Google).  I did not oppose solely due to the POV nature---as I said, it is also corny and fabricated---but I do think that the caption should at the very least reflect this fact, and that the POV arguments below about the Iraq card set, the Noodly Appendage, etc. should apply here also.  Spebudmak 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A seperate issue is that the arguments by trialsanderrors about the photo of the anti-Iranian American holding up a sign not being sufficiently notable or representative of that conflict (the Iran Hostage crisis in that case) should be applicable here. If we have one FP to represent the Pakistan earthquake, is this really the best choice?  Spebudmak 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the Pakistani earthquake, certainly not. As an image of humanitarian aid I think it's iconic. The difference is that the Iran Hostage picture is really not a high quality picture, and the only reason it gets this amount of attention is because of the message it conveys (as I posted there, I doubt the picture would have been nominated if the banner said "Oppose Proposition 16"). This one is a high quality shot, at least from the response at Commons, and the discussion on the origin distracts from the discussion on its quality. ~ trialsanderrors 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Spebudmak. Mahahahaneapneap 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I thought about nominating it myself. All that fuss about staged propaganda is ridiculous to me. The U.S. Army (sometimes) also helps people, you know. I'd also support any picture which shows the flip side of the Army (e.g. these iconic examples, but unfortunately either the resolution is not high enough, they lack of overall quality or do not have an appropriate license).-Wutschwlllm 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. This is not only engaging and has historical value, it is Encyclopaedic in the extreme! I strongly doubt it was staged, but even then it it still a great photo that represents its subject. Witty lama
 * Support per Iriseyes Tomer T 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not encyclopedic. This picture only adds beauty, not information to the two articles it is in.  These two individuals are not important, and giving water is not a terribly epic humanitarian act.  Airlifting people, yes, that is an epic humanitarian act, but you can't tell that they are in the air, or the relationship of these two people, or really anything else from this picuture. Enuja 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Per Tomer T 8thstar 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks a bit too much like propaganda to me. highlunder 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Oh sure, it's horrible propaganda because the photographer did such a wonderful job of capturing altruism and empathy. Politicizing a featured picture candidate is a sad waste of time. Take away the context and you're still left with an apt depiction of humanitarian aid. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support both It has to be a propaganda pic, since the US is doing humanitarian work, right? I am alarmed that the majority of the oppose votes are solely due to political reasons and paranoia towards the "message" the pic is trying to convey.  How about evaluating the pic based on its technical and encyclopedic merits?  I do have a bias in my opinion, but the fact that some of the users would consider the pic to be less offensive (not sure why the pic is offensive in the first place) if the Finnish military had been the one providing care for the child does cast doubt on the oppose reasons.  Are users afraid that Wikipedia will become a vehicle for blatant pro-US propaganda? That'll hardly be the case given the stanch opposition to a pic with a slightly positive image of the US. Wikipedians are suppose to be open to unorthodox and new concepts (in this case, the pic), instead of simply shutting it out due to personal political opinion.  Anyways, I see no major difference between the cleaned-up and original pic, so I support both. Unique/striking pic and encyclopedia for the earthquake and humanitarian aid articles. Oh...and maybe mention something out the 2 on the girl's forehead in the caption.   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Propaganda claims are absurd. From a encyclopaedic point of view, a larger shot could illustrate more, but this is a really great photo and still shows enc. qualities. Iorek85 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 is 1758 × 1276, that's well within our criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)