Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rumbek Sudan cattle camp2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Reasons for deletion request - The image is out of date, and does not accurately represent the represent the Herders of Rumbek, South Sudan. The image is out of date, and beyond that extremely disrespectful to the children naked in it. They likely have given no permission to have their image circulated, and have no knowledge it is being used. It is in essence, child pornography. However, it was deemed by someone as acceptable because they are African children in an African context. The commons would not put an image for New York up, with 5 naked children in it, so, please do not do it to these children. I live here in Rumbek. The people here are intelligent and have dignity. It is not within anyone's right to take that from them, as this image does by objectifying them without their consent or knowledge. I have uploaded a current image (now on the Rumbek wiki) which I photographed in a cattle camp here in Rumbek in November 2012. This is a current representation of the people here, and represents them without objectification. This image should be removed for purposes of inaccurate representation, and objectifying those who cannot protect themselves. Sincerely, JennaB.
Delete I disagree with just about all of this deletion request. Given the subjects' posing for the picture, the claims about their privacy being invaded are laughable. The stuff about objectification and lack of dignity are a joke: I suppose that now these people are "civilized" and eat MacDonalds :-( . But there are several naked children, some in poses which (in a glamor model) might be considered erotic and kiddy genitals are visible. That's a definite no no for the Commons. Somebody tell Jimbo that we really have found some kiddiporn and it's author is the US government! --Simonxag (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral It being outdated is an invalid argument. This is not an article about the current state of the culture, it is an image with a date in a media repository. If it is incorrectly used in an article, please address this on Wikipedia instead. The file would be usable in for example a historic context about how the culture was when the picture was taken. –Krinkletalk 03:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)- Neutral It is not clear to me whether Simonxag above is being sarcastic when he calls this "kiddiporn", but to state the obvious: Of course it is not. Nakedness is not pornographic and there is no erotism whatsoever in this picture. --Momotaro (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- There certainly is a level of irony in my argument. But I believe this is where the law has taken us. Other similar modern ethnographic images with visible child genitals have been deleted. All such medical images have been deleted or just not uploaded. My non-sarcastic view is that, though we are unlikely to be prosecuted for a US government image and the thing isn't actually pornographic, we have to be very careful. The Commons has been targeted in the past and almost certainly will be again. And this particular image probably does cross the line in terms of what is currently legally allowable. --Simonxag (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Can we please be serious here? Sarcastic and facetious comments don't do anything to help a deletion discussion. As already pointed out, the out-of-date, not-representative, disrespectful, and child-porn arguments are all either irrelevant or just nonsense. And BTW, being photographed naked doesn't mean you're not intelligent or dignified. Nominator's entire argument boils down to "I don't like this image", which is not a valid reason for deletion. Simonxag, this is nowhere near any relevant legal "line" (IANAL, but I can read the relevant Wikipedia articles). I appreciate that the nominator uploaded another image, as this is certainly the most productive response to finding images here that you don't like. Oh, and Simonxag, can you please (carefully) clarify your vote, as your original response would seem to imply {{Vote keep}}, and your second one, skewed towards {{Vote delete}}, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of existing law? - dcljr (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment My vote was (and is) to delete. This is solely because I believe the image may well fail the Dost test and certainly could be reasonably portrayed as child pornography by a "crusading" journalist. The conflicts and ironies in my response come from 2 sources:- (1) most of the deletion request's reasoning is politically correct nonsense and (2) supposed child protection has led us to a point where children's bodies and their natural healthy nakedness are rendered "pornographic". I am not happy that medical and educational images that would help children understand their own bodies must be deleted, but they must be. --Simonxag (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Okay, um... no. But to be more specific: by my reading of the Dost test, only #4 would get a "yes" for this picture — but then, it would get a yes on every single picture of a child ever taken ("Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude"). The implication in that item is that something is more likely to be found pornographic if the subject is "fully nude", but as I'm sure you well know, "simple nudity" is not grounds for calling something pornographic — and "simple nudity" is the only thing I see in this image (from the perspective of "testing" for pornography). So, I'm thinking we're quite safe in this instance. As for your hypothetical "crusading journalist", the proper response to that person would be, "You're an idiot." Finally, to address the overall tenor of your comments, you seem to be concerned mainly with the spectre of "bad publicity", but surely that possibility cannot trump the issues of "legality" and "adherence to our policies" that this discussion should be concerned with. - dcljr (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dost Test:- does the image of a minor have lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area ? A: In this case, by current standards Yes. Remember the individual questions are just guidelines and do not all need to be met.
- Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area. Yes several child genitals on view, all along the horizontal midline of the picture, some close to the centre.
- Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity. Yes 2 boys with hands behind head in glamor-model-like pose, one with hand close to and pointing at penis.
- Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child. Yes as above and the standards of dress and pose applied are likely to be American not African.
- Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude. Yes
- Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity. Maybe - the boys are doing male postures that tend to focus on their groin. They don't intend it as sexual availability, but their gestures are likely to be reinterpreted through prudish US sensibilities.
- Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. Maybe - I'd say "obviously not", but all it takes is an accusation that the photographer is a pedo and such accusations tend to stick, particularly to the innocent.
- The image might survive UK law which allows nudist family groups, but I wouldn't have it on my computer and risk finding out. But it's US law we need to worry about. --Simonxag (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The file is in use on multiple projects, and is provided by USAid, a US government agency, so any concerns of child pornography are, frankly, unwarranted. russavia (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
