Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl of the Welayta people.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Wollaita Girl, Ethiopia.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2014 at 12:44:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Rod Waddington - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- russavia (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment An interesting portrait, I need to think/compare a bit more to make my decision. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the image title -- seems a little 19th-century-ethinic-classification to me. Assuming Wollaita is the town/village, then even "Girl, Wollaita, Ethiopia" would be better imo. I looked at Rod's photostream and albums (https://www.flickr.com/photos/rod_waddington/sets/) and see there's a huge amount of high quality photography from round the world, all with a free licence. Since Rod is clearly happy to give away his images, I wonder if it would be a good idea to invite him to join Commons. He'd be able to help better classify and annotate his images, use them in WP articles and also interact with us at Featured Pictures. One difficulty that can occur at FP with external images is that any problems with the image or description/location/classification become difficult to resolve -- something that doesn't occur if we can talk directly. It would also enable Rod to nominate his own best images from his collection. I could send him a Flick message, but perhaps you want to invite him here since it's your nomination. -- Colin (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Rod relicenced his photos after my request, and have invited him to Commons on a few occasions. As to the non-issues you raise, Rod always adequately names his photos, so it is very easy to categorise, etc. The en:Wolayta people are an ethnic group in Ethiopia. russavia (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 16:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting portrait. A bit noisy in the background, but good sharpness. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose A technicaly good, but normal, portrait, with an unacceptable title.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC), ethnicaly south european caucasian.
- Comment There's nothing wrong with the title at all. russavia (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Wollaita Girl, Ethiopia.jpg" could be acceptable maybe, but the opened file is named "Girl of the Welayta ethnic group.jpg", it is as unacceptable as, for instance, "Boy of the Jewish ethnic group.jpg".--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Rod's comments on Flickr shows that you are wrong. ;o) And you can't judge if it is tilt or not in such a picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm an old man, and I don't know what "Flickr" is. I'm on "Commons" here, where Rod Waddington's comments are welcome.--Jebulon (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Rod's comments on Flickr shows that you are wrong. ;o) And you can't judge if it is tilt or not in such a picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Wollaita Girl, Ethiopia.jpg" could be acceptable maybe, but the opened file is named "Girl of the Welayta ethnic group.jpg", it is as unacceptable as, for instance, "Boy of the Jewish ethnic group.jpg".--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment There's nothing wrong with the title at all. russavia (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Great! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Support--Mile (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Info Christian Ferrer find some bad cloning on the face which i havent saw before. Anotated. --Mile (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)- Support Another National Geographic-cover quality portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support--Geagea (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Nice picture. Off topic: Would it be considered racist if we had a picture with a title "Dutch girl, The Netherlands" ? It is not embarrasing to be Dutch, so why do all the white guys here consider it degrading to be Wollaita ? I assume most Wollaita people are quite proud to be Wollaita. I would consider it more racist denying non-caucasians the right to be identified with an ethnic group. Anyone consider this picture racist ? -- Pugilist (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Dutch" is not an ethnic category, but a national one. The girl here is Ethiopian. I would like to see this girl in her cultural environment, doing something, not just portrayed as an ethnic specimen (read Colin below), sorry. Remember this, from a book named "Natural History of mammals"--Jebulon (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the answer lies in the number of people of color involved in the FP section. --The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where are these "white guys" considering it "degrading to be Wollaita"? Pugilist, The Photographer. Let's not be careless with the "racist" word. Classification of people primarily by their race or ethnic group has a troubled history (slavery, eugenics and genocide have their roots in the consideration that someone is not "a fellow human being" but one of "them"). While the study of ethnic groups is a valid science, tourists photographing indigenous people is increasingly seen as exploitative. I have no idea of the circumstances surrounding the taking of this photograph (and others in the Flickr group) so I trust it was respectfully and considerately done. Several hundred years of European oppression of other people groups makes me uncomfortable with such labelling. This lady is a person with a name, a family, an occupation; she is not a butterfly specimen. -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Colin: It is off topic and we could probably have a long discussion about this. I guess nobody disagree that slavery etc. was and is horrible and nobody disagree that the person on the photograph is a person with a name. My point was a little different. Pugilist (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to know what your point was, because all I see is an attempt to paint "the white guys here" as racist (i.e. thinking it is degrading to be Wollaita)", which is unacceptable and should be retracted. You've made a lot of assumptions, including that "most Wollaita people are quite proud to be Wollaita" rather than "completely reject ethnic grouping as a means by which to consider oneself better than another". You should note my point is whether ethnic/racial group is desirable primary classification (ie. filename) not whether it is a reasonable secondary classification (category), which it is (if done correctly). But we lack any other information about this person, so what can we do.. -- Colin (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see you missed the point. I understand your point but as you mention there is not much information from the flickr source. A discussion of an eventual new file name should be made another place. Pugilist (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think that Pugilist's point is that white, male, rich and privileged people will never understand how it is to be black, woman, poor or any other minority. Their intentions normally are good but they see the world though different eyes. The Photographer (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see you missed the point. I understand your point but as you mention there is not much information from the flickr source. A discussion of an eventual new file name should be made another place. Pugilist (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to know what your point was, because all I see is an attempt to paint "the white guys here" as racist (i.e. thinking it is degrading to be Wollaita)", which is unacceptable and should be retracted. You've made a lot of assumptions, including that "most Wollaita people are quite proud to be Wollaita" rather than "completely reject ethnic grouping as a means by which to consider oneself better than another". You should note my point is whether ethnic/racial group is desirable primary classification (ie. filename) not whether it is a reasonable secondary classification (category), which it is (if done correctly). But we lack any other information about this person, so what can we do.. -- Colin (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Colin: It is off topic and we could probably have a long discussion about this. I guess nobody disagree that slavery etc. was and is horrible and nobody disagree that the person on the photograph is a person with a name. My point was a little different. Pugilist (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the answer lies in the number of people of color involved in the FP section. --The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Some tilt over there (see notes) --The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Photographer if you would be able to help with the "tilt" issue that would be most appreciated mate. russavia (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is this really relevant in a portrait? We don't know if she was tilting her head a bit. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Russavia, Julian maybe, I think a straightened face highlights more the character of his gaze. This is just MHO, each observer will have his own reality.--The Photographer (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Photographer if you would be able to help with the "tilt" issue that would be most appreciated mate. russavia (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed a visible retouched area, however, is a problem of the original image. I fixed it too, but I preffer do it from the RAW --The Photographer (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Guys/gals, can we please have just a little bit of decorum here. I'm not a FP regular, but if the above is indicative of what goes on here perhaps this part of commons needs to be looked at. For the record, Rod and I are discussing the image, and the background behind his photography, on Flickr, and quite frankly some of the comments above are embarrassing for us as a project. russavia (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- russavia, your comments/discussion on Flickr just confirm my comments made initially (which you rejected as non-issues) that it is vital to encourage photographers to nominate their images and take part in the discussion. The above is indicative of how badly a nom can go when the photographer is unable to supply additional information/background. I was uncomfortable with the labelling, which anyone with an iota of knowledge of history would appreciate, but that discomfort doesn't extend to the point where I think it wrong -- I did support after all. I've made no suggestion that anyone might be uncomfortable being "identified as Welayta". It is one thing appearing online in someone's Flickr stream alongside friends and family. Quite another to appear randomly in a category in a database and labelled purely by ethnic group like one is a butterfly specimen. From the discussion on Flickr, I get the impression Rod is considerate of all these things and happy to elaborate on the background. You on the other hand, still seem to think these "non issues". One thing I do agree with you is that Pugilist's comments are unacceptable. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Great portrait. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Question is it a retouched area? see note. I say hello to the girl if she is looking at that, now or later :). -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 13:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Good observing. Obviously some bad cloning there !? I didnt see it before voting. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Many thanks to Rod for making such an outstanding (and valuable) portrait available under a free license. --El Grafo (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why especially "valuable" ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Because good portraits of non-celebrities are quite rare on Commons. (I'm using "valuable" in a broader sense than VI here.) --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why especially "valuable" ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 02:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People