Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2013 at 12:09:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Life study by the artist and film producer Sasha Kargaltsev. Part of Kargaltsev's widely respected series giving an insight into New York gay life. Kargaltsev is one of the rare professional artists to publish all his works on a free licence. This photograph was chosen as Fæ's 999,999th edit to Wikimedia Commons.
  •  Comment I have replaced the image with a link. I have no problem with such works on Commons or being reviewed for FP but a general forum like FPC should remain "safe for work" (or safe for viewing while my in-laws are visiting!). I appreciate the lack of image makes the nomination harder-work but hope you understand. Not everyone here is reviewing images in the privacy of their own study, and could face significant embarrassment or even disciplinary action for viewing this. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I got a bit of start when I was on a break at work and saw this come in through the corporate firewall. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow Colin, what's embarassing on an art nude photo, furthermore on one in a thumbnail view? Imo, you're exaggerating. --A.Savin 19:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate a bit of feedback on what images are to be censored in FPC candidate discussion as there ought to be an unambiguous definition that I can comply with. Nudity itself is not really "NSFW" in my view, this was a life study image, and an obviously gay one, but not a sexually explicit image or even an erotic one in my view. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid the C-word; this is not an issue of censorship and that word leads to a polarised mentality in discussions. Flickr offer some advice: "If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your mum, or Uncle Bob" and "A good rule of thumb is, bare breasts and bottoms are "moderate." Full frontal nudity is "restricted."". I'd rate both the "moderate" and "restricted" Flickr categories as needing a link rather than preview image. This image is full-frontal nudity even if the intention is not in your opinion sexual or erotic. It is hard to give an "unambiguous definition" but if there is doubt, I think a link should be used instead. In the UK, imo, viewing such images in a professional open-plan office can lead to disciplinary actions (misuse of company facilities, sexual harassment in the workplace), as well as considerable embarrassment. A.Savin, if you think I am exaggerating then you need to read a UK employee handbook (the scope of "misuse of company facilities" is often worded extremely widely and the sentence for this "crime" can be as severe as instant dismissal). Perhaps you don't work in a mixed-sex open-plan professional office environment in a country like the UK? This isn't a "thumbnail" like on QI, but about 5x5 inches. One can get away with more nudity in a historical fine-art painting than in a photograph -- there's a considerable a social-attitude difference even if you believe there isn't a rational one. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few simple points, from someone who happens to be the most active contributor to Wikimedia Commons this month:
  1. "Censorship" is not the C-word, you appear to be trying to create a parody here where even the concept of what might be censorship is as offensive to discuss as the word "cunt". We have an extremely clear section in one of our most important policies on this project, Commons:Project scope#Censorship. This photograph is not offensive sexual material in anyone's book. Thank you for your concern for my family, but my mother would not be in the least bit offended by this life study shot of a gay couple that is more romantic than erotic. If you are offended by it, I'm afraid that is your problem, not Wikimedia Commons' problem to hide it from you or your mum.
  2. It is not your job to hide content on Commons on the basis of what you personally think might be NSFW or not, based on rules that you are making up as you go along. If you think Commons should have a policy of hiding explicitly homosexual content or nude content then I suggest you run an RFC so that the Community can decide whether your ideas about censorship represent everyone else. Until you do manage to establish a community consensus for this type of censorship, I am restoring this photo to this discussion rather than allowing special rules on this discussion that exist nowhere else on Commons. Your personal opinions may be interesting, but do not have the power to overturn guidelines established by the community.
  3. Commons is not Flickr, quoting their policies here to justify your action in censoring this image is no justification.
  4. Commons has images of dead people, sex education content, nude women and images of highly offensive political and defamatory propaganda. If you work in an office environment where policies for internet access are so restrictive that you might get dismissed, then you probably should not randomly surf the internet at all. It is not within Commons' scope or any guidelines to comply with arbitrary policies that companies may have made up or may vary on a day to day basis, but are neither a national law, nor practical for this project.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have confused Commons hosting guidelines with the wishes of those participating at FPC -- the community at FPC can set their own guidelines wrt what material should be hidden from immediate display in that forum. I'm disappointed you are edit-warring over this without establishing consensus for change. You also seem to be confusing my personal opinions with those of my personnel department at work, views I have no control over and who do not have to conform to the kind of morality views at Commons yet have a rather large influence on my pay packet each month. If FPC is NSFW then I cannot and shall not participate. Goodbye. Colin (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, boldly making a single edit to restore the discussion to comply with the norms of this project is not edit-warring. Neither have I "confused" the guidelines. If there are to be special rules for FPC that do not apply anywhere else on Commons, then you need to establish them as agreed with the community rather than dictating them on the community. As for your morality, you are most welcome to hold your views and discuss them here, but please do not assume that your morals are superior. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a UK office employee and you believe to endanger your job by watching FPC page as well as any other Wikimedia page on a computer in your office, you probably should avoid Wikimedia projects entirely while surfing on Internet at work. Wikimedia projects have for a good reason a purely educational purpose, there were already "worse" things (remember Vulva on WP Main Page?), we on Commons have also explicit pornographic images, so there were plenty of discusions on child protection, image filter etc., but fortunately none of them have been succesfull so far. Yes, in some countries you might lose your job, in some other countries maybe also your freedom or even your life (because there are still lots of backward barbaric countries in the world, even nor, in 2013); maybe also because of much more harmless pictures; but still, it is not Commons' job to safe you from such risks. Its only job is: hosting freely licensed educational content. --A.Savin 23:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, seriously, get back to work, I am sure that your employer isn't paying you to be surfing the net, and even more sure that they are not paying you to argue on the internet. Also, I think you are coming across as a little high and mighty when you talk of the "FPC community", or is it that FPC in your mind is the feifdom of a few closed off entirely to the evil outsiders? Sorry, but we are all members of the same community, so Fae's suggestion of an RFC on the issue is a sound one. russavia (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we leave a crap image on display, that is obviously not going to succeed as FP given the community's standards, just to spite people that have concerns as to when and where it gets displayed? Brilliant. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the body of Kargaltsev's works are related to his gay life, however he has made some studies of non-gay subjects such as this nude portrait of a heterosexual couple which I doubt would be suppressed due to arbitrary claims of being NSFW. I would be surprised if all of his artwork was considered "crap" by the community and I would be interested to know if alternative gay related photographs published on Commons under Category:Files from Sasha Kargaltsev Flickr stream that feature nude or semi-nude gay men would also be subject to censorship if I nominate them here. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know this heterosexual couple is heterosexual? Are they a couple at all? Nothing on the flickr site would allude to these assertions as being fact. Actually the commentary in the description would lead me to think otherwise, albeit in a rather humorous way. Regardless, it is all irrelevant. The nominated image is of an exceedingly poor technical quality that it is appalling you nominated it. Moreover, your desire to make it a test case should not trump accepted FPC practices. The fact that you persist in throwing around the censorship card speaks clearly to your motives not Colin's. However, let me assure you I would have objected to any image on FPC that displayed full frontal human nudity. Not because I am prude, but rather because I would like to exercise control of what gets displayed on my screen beyond a certain limit as a courtesy to those around me and out of respect for the terms of acceptable use I often commit to, to use various venues of Internet access. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no more reasonable chance of success now (only one support vote, by the nominator, and six oppose), and above all technically below of the standard qualities for a FP (Blurry, unsharp) --Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
    • I have contested this early close even though we have seen only opposes. In line with the FPC General rules I would prefer this to run for the minimum normal time. An early close such as Jebulon has proposed would appear to be a way of mollifying the move to suppress this image as NSFW and is the sole current subject case example to support a current RFC about this type of censorship. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fae, I've reverted your edit as the image is indeed not FP quality, with little chance of passing. I understand and share your concerns, especially as it relates to people who should be working trying to censor the project, but seriously this is not the image to use to have such a discussion that you wish to have. russavia (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question May I move this per General rules: 9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. People can still see this at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kelvin_and_Aren.jpg. This was initially tagged by MichaelMaggs at 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC). JKadavoor Jee 13:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be in line with the rules, as no-one other than the proposer has supported. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kelvin_and_Aren.jpg&oldid=108960163"