Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joe Biden and Barack Obama

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Biden's first speech after vice-presidential candidacy announcement

[edit]
Original - Joe Biden's first speech after the announcement of his vice presidential candidacy in Springfield, Illinois
Edit1 - Edit by Mfield to make controversial teleprompter appear transparent (as it actually is in reality when it doesn't have bright sunlight bouncing off it)as they more commonly are
Reason
It's a high quality and relevent image of both Joe Biden and Barack Obama early on in their campaign with good expression and clarity. I recall seeing a very different image of the two of them nominated in the past and I liked that one, but I think this one has a bit more context.
Articles this image appears in
Joe Biden and Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008
Creator
User:Dschwen
  • Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The stand (i'm not 100% sure what that is), is too distracting. smooth0707 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm. Its just a dark, wooden, innocuous stand/podium, how does it distract you? Its an important part of the stage where Joe Biden is speaking and is relevent to the composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think s/he's referring to the white thing between them, which I agree is unfortunate. Good picture but I need to think a bit more about it before supporting. Sidenote: Obama looks a bit like a doofus here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it a teleprompter? This one that Bush is using looks pretty advanced (no doubt our best tech is needed to make him barely coherent). Biden seems to be looking its way. I agree it's a little distracting, but it's a shot of a public speech, not a portrait, so it's to be expected there is some junk in the frame... ditto with the water bottle. Fletcher (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diego_pmc Talk 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Support Obama is a little bit blurred. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but if you look at the FPC title, and the articles that it is in, the image is not about Obama. It is more about Joe Biden in relation to the presidential campaign, so in this sense, it is probably preferable for Obama to be slightly out of focus as he is present, but not speaking. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite teleprompter, blurry Obama, and color-splotched wood.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Intothewoods29 (below) had a good point: It depicts an event, rather than a face, and the teleprompter has to be there because Biden is "not entitled to look more authentic than he is" (Fletcher). Removing the teleprompter is unrealistic and POV.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support encyclopedic value and decent technical quality Thisglad (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Has EV, but lacks the photographic merit of the Obama FP we already have. DurovaCharge! 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet the Obama FP we already have shows a stunning lack of Joe Biden and his first speach on the campaign. --Dschwen 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photo is in the Biden presidential campaign article, not the Obama campaign article. EV seems lacking in that respect. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-03 15:43Z
        • What does this comment refer to? It makes no sense to me. --Dschwen 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think he was replying to my comment below. It still makes no sense even then, though. I think the fact that the image is in the Joe Biden article makes it perfectly encyclopaedic for that article. Just because it also exists in other articles as a major or minor image, it does not discount the image as a FP. It only needs one article in which it provides enc. The rest is just a bonus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Obama FP we already have is a fine piece of photography by any standard. As important as this photograph is (and yes I'm glad we have it), the two principal figures are divided by a teleprompter. If the photographer had been standing to the left so the background were more consistent and the teleprompter less intrusive, and if the photo had been taking while the two men were smiling at each other (or better still, shaking hands) then I would probably support. I realize it is very difficult to get this type of shot at all, much less get it to order. But (at least theoretically) there are four more weeks for Wikipedians to get photographs of the presidential campaigns. DurovaCharge! 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • four more weeks for Wikipedians to get photographs of the the announcment event of his vicepresidency and their first joint appearance in the campaign. Sure. --Dschwen 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • And what you didn't realize: there is a second teleprompter off to the left (check Image:Obama_Biden_rally_4.jpg), getting a picture without a teleprompter without a tight closeup is just not possible, they are always there. --Dschwen 12:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am all too aware of the limitations when one tries to get featured material out of political events. Several months back I nominated Abraham Lincoln's first inauguration after having spent about 15 hours restoring it. It lost out on technical merits too. DurovaCharge! 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Durova -- mcshadypl TC 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its an encyclopedic image but I prefer this image as it shows better details about Biden with a background Obama illustrating their partnership. Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose EV not really there. Note that it's used in the Biden presidential campaign article. White stand is also pretty distracting. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-03 15:43Z
    • Yes, it is in the presidential campaign article, and while the image itself is not of his campaign for presidentcy, it is still relevent as it is in the Aftermath section where it relates to his vice-presidency. And it is also in the Joe Biden article, where it has plenty of EV IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry but this one just doesn't do it for me. Oppose as per above. Jordan Contribs 17:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this "action shot" provides a valuable example of what these guys do, something a pic of their heads would not have. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the supposed main subject is not the actual main focus of the photo.--Avala (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are pretty much no pictures related to the democratic ticket of even comparable quality used in article and made by Wikipedians. (The current Obama FP is only half an exception, as it it a) only used in a subarticle now and b) the uploader didn't ever contribute anything else). So, yes, you guessed it, I find it very frustrating how people stack on one made up reason after another. Supposed main subject is not the actual main focus of the photo, what?! Explain please. this one just doesn't do it for me, can this be qualified in terms of the criteria? EV not really there, huh?! It is first event in their joint campaign. I think this is a pretty important moment for Joe Biden, hence it is in his article. lacks the photographic merit of the Obama FP we already have, how would an existing Obama FP be relevant here? The honorable nominator has also produced numerous high resolution panos which exceed the photographic merit of most images on this page (including pretty much every single Durova-nomination), does this mean we cannot promote those?! Geez, it wasn't like I could set up a tripod in that dense crowd! I was standing in the scorching sun for 5 hours at that time. People were fainting left and right of me. So pardon that my hand wasn't all that steady anymore. I shot about 500 pictures that day. Most of them with the camera held high above my head. It seems like some people here don't realize what it took to get this (and the other pic in the series) --Dschwen 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally sympathize with you Daniel. I complained about this earlier on commons, since I kept hitting the same wall. The same is currently the case with my picture of the red-light district. I completely understand why it is being opposed here by the way(good arguments are given), but it will probably not make on commons, due to vague arguments like 'not interesting' (though it is a very good picture except for the EV). But don't let it get to you, or else you will lose fun in being on Wikipedia. There will always be people judging your work negatively based on the wrong arguments, but so what..it isn't a matter of life and death. As long as you know that it is a good picture, which you can be proud of partly due to the effort you put in to it. P.S. Diliff nominated it, so that has got to count for something. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy. It's not about how much effort Dschwen put into it, or about who nominated it. It's about the picture, people! Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point I think he meant to make, this picture is easily as good as most professional photographers sell to stock photography agencies but he released it on wikipedia, some people are judging the image quite harshly considering it's considerable encyclopedic value and acceptable technical quality (who expects every face in an image to be in sharp focus?) Thisglad (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I thought I might oppose for the teleprompter, which lessens the authenticity of Biden's oration, but I realized he's not entitled to look more authentic than he is. The teleprompter simply depicts reality. Some viewers are evidently confused or distracted by it, so it might be noted in the caption somehow. And although I prefer the close-up shot Muhammad pointed to, the subject photo is still among Wikipedia's best work. Surprised it doesn't have more competition.. Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd crop a bit off the right side though. de Bivort 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Despite what the nitpickers say about the teleprompter being in the image overall I think it's still a good shot and still meets the criteria. Cat-five - talk 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The teleprompter detracts from the picture's enc., there are also some focus issues (especially looking at Obama) and noise (look at the Obama/Biden sign for some of it). Changed to Weak support SpencerT♦C 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NO IT DOESN'T. I've just about had it! There are teleprompters at public speeches. If you don't believe it, go to one your self. it is not Wikipedias mission to beautify reality, and create the illusion that these people can speak freely for hours. Geez! This is an encyclopedia, if don't wan images that depict reality as it is, then go to flicker, or deviant art or where ever. --Dschwen 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Dschwen has tackled the issue of the teleprompter, let me clarify a few more points. This image depicts Joe Biden giving the speech and is in articles relating to Joe Biden and as such, the focus is on Joe Biden. Therefore it is completely unrealistic to expect the background to be tack-sharp, particularly Obama who is incidental, but a bonus to the composition. Also, the amount of noise visible on the sign is absolutely insignificant. We've featured hundreds of photos with more noise (including many of mine). Yes, the criteria mentions technical quality such as noise, but be fair. You should compare it to existing FPs rather than a theoretical ideal of zero noise. Sorry to come down hard on you but to be honest, you have more than come down hard on this image without due justification IMO! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, thanks for clarifying. Also per the comment below: "The teleprompter is a crucial device and omitting it would distort the account of the event." by Dschwen. Changing vote to weak support. (Question though: Could the teleprompter not have separated Biden and Obama, or have been in the center? i.e., if it could have been taken from an angle where it was on the side, or a bit lower.) SpencerT♦C 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very illustrative, high enc, well done. As for the teleprompter, that's part of a politician giving a speech in his natural environment. Mfield (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - could do without the big white square in the middle of the image --T-rex 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but do people read the previous course of discussion before they cast their vote?! --Dschwen 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So go retake the picture without the big white square in the middle. As long as it is there this is not featured picture quality --T-rex 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As he already explained, there are two teleprompters very near the stage that Joe Biden used during the speech. No angle could possibly avoid the teleprompter while providing any significant environmental context to the speech. It is of complete relevance to the composition. Why do you insist it must be absent??? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd go even further, even if there would have been a way to take this without the teleprompter, I'd still include it. The teleprompter is a crucial device and omitting it would distort the account of the event. The suggestion to go retake the picture without the big white square isn't really helpful and makes me wonder if the user is even remotely interested in a serious discussion. --Dschwen 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am completely serious. We don't need a picture of a white square. I am sure there are better times and better angles from which to get a picture of Obama and Biden together. However due to the junk in the middle of the picture this is clearly not featured quality. --T-rex 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • T-Rex, please explain if you would what brought you here today to place such vehement opposition to this image, on what from not recognizing your username and from a quick glance back though your contributions appears to be your first day of contributions at FP? Did you just happen upon this or was it brought to your attention somehow. I am interested. If it is your first time contributing here you would do well to familiarize yourself with the criteria and procedures before throwing such explanations and language like 'junk' around. Mfield (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh, no, not... dare I say (and even then not in regards to the image): "Junk". Wow, even my the profanity filters at my schools computers didn't allow that one! I had to manually hack J-U-N and K together. ;-) Look, guys, he's opposing due to composition. Leave it at that. He isn't a new user (New to FPC perhaps but not new) he wasn't calling the image "j*nk". Only the teleprompter. If this image doesn't stand up to the spirit and/or the letter of the criteria for this voter. Leave it at that. This has gone beyond the usual "perhaps you didn't consider this technical limitation" dialogue. Relax. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No this is not my first time with featured picture candidates, but it has been a long while since I last was here. My opinions on the pictures also are different from the majority here, as I focus on angle and extreamness, rather than technical aspects. And if you are accusing me of having a political motivation for this, then you really haven't looked at my contributions. You really don't think I couldn't find a better venue to push political ideas? I just think that the white square takes away from the subject of the image, and therefore leaves it at less then featured quality. --T-rex 01:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry if imy comment seemed a touch accusatory, it just seemed that this particular image had attracted a bunch of voting from new or non regular contributors which seemed a bit unusual. Mfield (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, none of us can argue persuasively about composition since it is a subjective element of every photo but to be honest it just sounds like he is opposing a fundamental and necessary part of the scene. It is a bit like opposing an image of a cat because the cat has whiskers and they're distracting/ugly/whatever. Thats just what cats have, and it would be unfair to oppose on those grounds. If it were even possible to take a photo of a cat that avoided showing its whiskers, would that be appropriate to do? I would argue that no, a good FP shows all elements relevant to the composition clearly. Anyway, regarding the issue of new, I would say that while everyone that shows some thoughtfulness deserves equal suffrage, we should still make sure they're doing so within the bounds of the criteria and not creating their own criteria to support their position. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So whenever Joe Biden and Barack Obama get together a white square always just magically appears between them? --T-rex 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This image doesn't depict Biden and Obama 'getting together'. This is Biden's and the Democratic Party ticket's first election run speech and as such, the composition contains speech related items such as a teleprompter. You're being obtuse. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a well known fact that Obama is incapable of giving a coherent speech without a teleprompter anyway, so having it within the shot is completely encyclopedic. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they don't. MER-C 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, some people just can't take a joke can they? (PS: I'm well aware of the fact that Obama wasn't speaking at that exact moment, but given the fact that it is his campaign rally I don't see how that would make a difference in regard to the teleprompter) -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I should support this as well. As an eyewitness to the event I can testify to the pictures authenticity and (as far as possible) NPOVness. As I iterated above, getting this quality under the circumstances was already quite a challenge, and in fact of the several hundred pictures I took, only a handful came out this well. In terms of quality and encyclopedic value/relevance this image fulfills the criteria in my opinion. Yes, I took the picture, but I'm quite aware of that, and certainly would not argue this strongly for any arbitrary pic of mine. --Dschwen 16:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I appreciate the work that went into this, and acknowledge that it is a good shot of this particular event. However, the EV of having the two on stage at this particular event is not high enough for me to support this as a Featured Picture, given how offputting the visual clutter of the pillars is for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to point out, that these are not the paper-mâché columns from the democratic national convention, but the authentic columns from the Old State House in Springfield, where Obama (and incidently Abraham Lincoln) announced his bid for the Presidency. It doesn't look cluttered to me in the enlarged version. The thumb doesn't do it justice. --Dschwen 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice picture. When I looked on them I saw peculiar situation. It's not easy to take interesting picture during politcal speech - but this time it has been done. Andrew18 @ 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Composition-wise, this just doesn't meet FP standards in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mostlyharmless and Ragesoss. In my view, the composition is just not up to FP snuff, and the event isn't important enough to mitigate that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based solely on the lack of photographic merit (composition, sharpness, etc.) expected from featured images. As spectacular and unique as Barack Obama is, this photo is not. As an aside- and not at all affecting my !vote in the matter- I find some of the behavior of Dschwen and Difill in this discussion completely unacceptable. To assume someone is making their decision based on politics- with no proof whatsoever- is deplorable, and the photographer and nominator are both attempting to claim that encyclopedic value is simply a fact (as if it was just conferred on the image based on who's in it and when it was taken) as opposed to a matter of opinion. Regardless of their actions, and regardless of my extremely liberal political values (I work for a local Democratic committee, for god's sake), I still don't think this image is worthy of being featured. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm surprised this nomination is still active actually, given that the recent votes have pushed consensus away from a promotion and it is well overdue for closure. Firstly, I accept genuine compositional reasons as grounds for opposition. I only protested against unjustifiable votes that completely misinterpreted the point of the nomination. Many people were arguing (and it appears you have too), for example, that this image is about Barack Obama. It isn't, it is in articles relating to Joe Biden. Also, I never assumed that someone made their decisions based on politics. I suspected it on occasion, but never involved that in the discussion, given the obvious lack of proof and it was never a factor in my arguments. However, given that numerous opposing votes were cast by people with poor justification and a distinct lack of prior involvement in FPC, I don't think it is wrong to at least be aware of the possibility of political bias being a factor. We can assume good faith to an extent, but it is counterproductive when the odds suggest otherwise, even when absolute proof is unattainable. As for the technical photographic merit of the image, the sharpness is absolutely top notch when compared to the vast majority of existing FPs (remember, Obama is not the focus of the shot, so the sharpness of him is not critical). Composition, as I have always argued here, is subjective and cannot be discussed in absolute terms, so I won't even attempt to disagree on that one. I just think you should read carefully what I've said before you call my actions deplorable. I deny that I did what you're accusing me of! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Opposition I oppose only because of the controversy. I could very well be wrong, but I think a featured pictures should be a picture that can be universally(more or less) appreciated. However, I could be persuaded that this much controversy makes a good featured picture. Unfortunately, the controversy seems to be on the pictures merits(composition, focus, etc.) rather than on politics. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think you are somewhat wrong about featured pictures being universally appreciated. What we're looking for is images that are of great value to articles and are of high technical standard, as per the criteria. It doesn't say anything about being universally appreciated by viewers. It seems like you're only politicising the nomination/image more (not in the US election sense of political but wikipedia political sense) by opposing 'because of the controversy'. I think it should be the case that either you believe the image meets the criteria set, or you don't. Your opinion on the discussion should not be a factor in your vote at all! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, ok, now I've seen it all! An oppose that is only based on the fact that some other people opposed. In light of this so called controversy being a complete farce (let me just say floating white square), this makes this vote... ...ah well, I better stop typing here. --Dschwen 14:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Due to the distracting teleprompter. Great images get tossed all the time because of some distracting element, I see no reason to make an exception. It also looks a lot like a snapshot, which also get tossed all the time. The most interesting thing to note here IMHO is the label removed from the water bottle. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added Edit1 just to see if that removes any of the teleprompter objections and leaves only the political opposes in place ;) Also croped a little background out. Mfield (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the effort, but the teleprompter was not transparent, as I explained above. --Dschwen 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, i missed that bit in the long winded and often irrelevant discussion. Although that would be the first non transparent teleprompter I have ever seen so I just assumed it was a reflection of the sky. Unless the monitor they are using is incredibly dim there should be no reason not to use a transparent one so that's quite unusual in itself. They obviously didn't get the memo from FP voters that non use of a transparent one would risk them not being featured ;) Mfield (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice photoshop work though, but I agree with Dschwen. We can't just change what existed in the scene because we don't like the aesthetics. If people can't accept the scene as it is, so be it. Shame though, as it helps to describe the event IMO, not detract from it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was mostly as a matter of interest thing to see what the reaction would be, after all people have been arguing that it is distracting and not important and shouldn't be there. Plenty of FPs have had distracting background elements removed before they were passed, so I was interested to see whether it would change any votes/remove any of the objections that were solely based on the teleprompter. I happen to agree with you and Dschwen and have no problem with the original myself. Mfield (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very cool Mfield! What did you use to fill in the white space? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

[edit]

I can has feedback on edit 1 plz. MER-C 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distracting telepromoter was the main sticking point, but the attempt to fix this was opposed. I'm not sure whether the event was important enough to offset this, so No consensus seems the obvious outcome. MER-C 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange isn't it. I think it may just have become too buried down the page, or the discussion may have become too political and long winded for it to attract any further attention from previous voters. Mfield (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, sweet, it's Nov 5th, official results are in, and I'm sitting on the Florida Keys. IN YOUR FACE!!! ;-) --Dschwen 02:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a photo of a nice blue sky. If only the teleprompter hadn't been there... --Para (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Joe_Biden_and_Barack_Obama&oldid=1148860046"