Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fine-art-nudepicture.jpg

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

File:Fine-art-nudepicture.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2019 at 04:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nude kneeling womanNSFWTAG
  • That link/comment was totally uncalled for, Basile. Please respect that some people have a different view that you. Being a Swede and more used to nudity than most Europeans, I can play nice on a few of these noms, but on the whole I'm not a fan of a genre that is essentially just a way of justifying men looking at and objectifying naked women. --Cart (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, we've had these tired arguments long before you came here. Nothing you say is new and all dismissed many times before. The "NOT CENSORED" phrase gets bandied about by people utterly ignorant of what censorship really is and the limited scope of those policies. Commons does not censor what files it hosts in case someone should be upset (though it certainly censors material that is illegal or uploaded to harass). Wikipedia does not censor its articles content in case someone should be upset. But as WP:GRATUITOUS explains, we also try to avoid deliberately offending others, and find alternative ways to present information or images if possible. If you think for a minute that hiding an "erotic image" behind a link saying "NSFW" or "Erotic image" will cause fewer people to look and reduced "visibility" of those images, you don't understand how the mind works.
The censorship policies on both projects do not extend beyond File space on Commons and Article space on Wikipedia. Forums, user and talk pages and community newspapers are all subject to what grown-ups call "editorial restraint". It was clear to anyone watching Websteralive's account that they were here to provoke and cause trouble, and were likely a sock account. They have now been blocked indef.
Basile, even people who are quite comfortable with such images appreciate that readers should have control over when, where and whether to view them. It is not acceptable to view nude imagery in the office, on public transport, or a library or study hall, for example. Further one does not have to be a "prude", as you put it, to regard such images as problematic. Most feminist opinion regards such images as objectification of women, designed to reward the "male gaze": women are reduced to sexual objects for the pleasure of a male viewer, and often where the image is created/photographed by a man. This is modern mainstream opinion: nobody sticks a Pirelli calendar in the office these days. Wikipedia and Commons already have a problem with being considered hostile and unwelcoming to women. Repeatedly nominating such images here is simply an act of male aggression. -- Colin (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user, Websteralive, is probably a standard teenager who enjoys smoking weed while watching erotic programs. Well, not the best manner to seduce attractive ladies in the real world, but there's an age for that, and in my view the current disruption is not absolutely harmful. This is more touching and funny than inadmissible "male aggression" See at least six regular reviewers and respectable photographers supporting this nomination. Several of his QI candidates, reviewed by experienced users, will be promoted soon, some others have passed already. These nude photographs taken by Destailleur are not that bad in reality. This one for example arrived 4th position in the picture of the year.
Now the thumbnails of these QIs are in the archives, and trying to hide them because "they have been nominated by a terrible sock-puppet" would be even more pathetic than the wrong edits this person did.
Youth is nice in general. Young people make mistakes but they also bring new things, new materials, modern ideas. I understand teenagers get bored with repetitive churches, deserted landscapes and austere ceilings. Everybody, males and females, feel usually concerned with eroticism, feminists and machos too . There's no consensus now to say this image for example is not featurable. So why hiding it ? Several users just vote "oppose" because of the (very bad) nominator, but imagine if this work was promoted ? Now the question of the censorship becomes a real problem. Because such promoted works usually go straight among the other POTY candidates, and should not be hidden.
"Not safe for work" ? Of course this text replacing an image is totally safe for work, because these are just words, not representation. As when we read "cock" or "pussy", nobody sees what is behind these alphabet letters. And when you work at the university, or at the bank, or anywhere, you just don't click on a link saying "erotic image here" This is how the mind works.
Back to the picture, she really shows sumptuous curves ♥ Frankly, after a caesarean (means after pregnancy), such a wonderful body is impressive. Charm photography, very instructive -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I understand the above opinions but to me imperfections like a scar should not necessarily be grounds to dismiss a picture. Human beings don't fit a perfect ideal, that's to be celebrated not airbrushed I think. Also am I the only one who thinks she looks like a young Chrissie Hynde? Cmao20 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 04:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Fine-art-nudepicture.jpg&oldid=347534276"