Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Robiul3.jpg

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

File:Robiul3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 17:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rabiul (11 years old)
  •  Support Any photograph that tells a story that is worth being heard deserves to be featured, and I highly suggest that everyone read the description. Also see my comment below. WClarke 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yann, and anyone else: It is worth noting that there are two photographs (Rabiul.jpg & Robiul2.jpg) that, in addition to this photograph, appear to make up a set. They are all of the same subject in the same place, and they all have the same description, so should we nominate them as a set, as it seems the author (Razurahmanbd) intended? If the author is around, just to be completely clear, are they intended to be viewed together? Thanks. WClarke 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Oppose See below. A documentary photo that is almost hard to watch... Wrt WClarke's comment, I don't see what three photos can say better than this one photo can. Not sure they are intended as a set as many photographers simply number photos of similar scene/subjects as a way of distinguishing them from each other. --cart-Talk 21:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The Photographer 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I can't support a dangeroux for a children. Thanks Colin for notifiquer it --The Photographer 21:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Regretful neutral A shattering image, but even that cannot make me !vote for an image of someone posed sitting on what appears to be an actively used rail track. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support although Daniel has a point --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Daniel. I very much doubt such an image would be published in the UK by any responsible picture editor -- lest it encourage a child to play on the railway tracks. I appreciate he lives at the railway station, and this is a third-world railway track rather than a busy high-speed line, but there seems no good reason to photograph him sitting on the tracks. Further, the background story, though heartbreaking and one I do not doubt, is unsourced and supplied by an unknown and inactive user. It is hard to see how this image/story could be responsibly used for an educational purpose. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Sure is it encouraging? are we going through something not so much about the image? --2001:B07:644F:23A4:28C4:10AC:2FE9:24D5 19:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colin: Please stick to review the quality and value of the picture. Making a wrong political statement about children living standards doesn't help. I worked for children living in Bombay Central railway station, helping them to find solutions to their problems, but it seems you really have no idea about the lives of such children. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yann, I have made no "political statement about children living standards". I'm talking about responsible photography, and responsible sourcing of a story. -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Among all probabilities, this track is probably just beside his home, as there are a lot of slums by railway tracks, just because there is unoccuppied land there. Not only it is dangerous, but it is also dirty and noisy. And yet it is his living habitat. It is the place where he spends most of his time, trying to make a living picking up whatever he could find there. So you doesn't know what you are talking about. Still your comment is a kind of political statement. It is arrogant and scornful. You want to decide for the child where he should stay and live. Regards, D (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yann, could you cool it a bit please. The comments you are making bear absolutely no resemblance to what I've written. I'm not making any political statement. I have not said anything about where he should stay and live. Have you read the links I posted below. It's about photographers and precisely where they choose to pose and compose their subjects, and the effect that has on other photographers posing subjects on railway lines and getting themselves killed. Those parallel lines trailing into the distance are a deadly magnet for photographers. This is nothing to do with the boy. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't need to ping me. I always watch my nominations. Yes, your comment has everything to do with the boy. You assume that for him seating in the tracks is a game, or/and that this is a set up by the photographer to make the image more powerful. I think you are wrong on both points. Even if the boy's story is not the truth, he most probably just happens to be here when the photograph passed by. The tracks are his living environment. Why can't he be photographed where he lives? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have not given any indication, an indication in the slightest, that I think the boy thinks sitting on the tracks is a game. I cannot read the photographers's mind and have no interest in it. I haven't doubted the story, just question the ability for a responsible publisher to use it: it is just a random story on the internet. Real publishers would only accept such a story from a trusted source. I live next to a busy main road, but I don't photograph my children standing in the middle of it. It is perfectly possible to photograph this boy where he lives, without him sitting on the tracks. Yann, I don't think you've taken on board the links I posted below. This image/story cannot be responsibly published, and I'm far from the only person here that thinks so. I'm unwatching this page now. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with Colin and Daniel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per above, sorry --A.Savin 19:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Neutral. (13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)) the photograph is visually stunning and is accompanied by background info that really makes it speak volumes more. I don't see the above oppose reasons as strong enough frankly. For concerns about children playing on the tracks, the image is already accompanied by a red box warning, and if you ask me, a child's first thought really could well be: "Look what happened to the kid who ran on the tracks!". That being said, I wouldn't be able to forgive the feeling within me to deny coverage of other stories told worldwide that are heard far less on places like the internet. Although Humans of New York is helping the cause recently, at least this image is freely licensed! Seb26 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seb26, photos on railway tracks can look "visually stunning". That's why they are popular and why every year people are killed taking photos on railway tracks, and kids are killed playing on them. See this PetaPixel search for multiple articles describing deaths, the backlash that irresponsible publishers face if they post such images, and a good video highlighting how easy it is to get killed. Despite my comment about about third-world tracks, in fact more people died taking selfies in India than anywhere in world, study says. Way more. and that includes selifies taken in front of an oncoming train. Any publisher using such an image would face considerable negative press calling for the head of the photo editor. That means, despite any photographic qualities, the educational value of this image is extremely low, and on a project dedicated to educational media, that means it is not among our finest, and not FP. I really wish the photographer had taken their photos in a safe location. Please reconsider supporting this; it isn't the sort of image we want to encouage. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Seb26 has a point about how a child might view this photo, I've changed my vote based on Daniel's comment. Since I live in an area with lots of inactive rails, I tend to forget the perils in other places. Colin, while the article you link to says that there were 11 train related selfie deaths world-wide that year (which is bad enough) it is about selfie deaths, not train-related, and it also says that "Most of the Indian deaths were water-related". I think this would be a more relevant source. --cart-Talk 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[1] The backlash against a photo on National Geographic's Instagram profile as recently as in the last two weeks definitely concerned me. Thank you for the links. I still feel that this boy's story is related to his home at the station. I don't fault the photographer at all in this respect and do not think that he deliberately decided to have the boy sit on the tracks. But it is right what you say, being an FP means it'll reach the main page and potentially expose Commons to backlash or outrage. I am going to be  Neutral because I can still see that out of all possible photographs and all possible poses made on one, this photograph is going to be the least likely to encourage people or children to do it. Seb26 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm doubtful about the story mentioned in the file page. The beggar mafia is very strong in Asia. They even amputate the children to attract the sympathy. The children will say the story what their mafia leader teach them. They are mostly associated with tracks; so I see anything wrong in this photography though. They will quickly adapted to that environment and quickly achieve the skills to board and alight from a moving train. Jee 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Even if his "natural habitat" is among the rails the picture is a very bad double take on it. It says something in the description and shows something that can easily be interpreted in a different way. It also lacks any sensitivity (or rather humility from the photographer's part) that great photographers show in their work, you need not to go any further than GMB Akash, the undisputed king of Bangladeshi street photography to see what I mean. Also as Jkadavoor said above me, it is a thing in South-Asia and everyone should approach any story about a child amputee with caution. Is the story about this picture plausible? Yes, sadly tying up children and/or putting them in sacks and dumping in water part is all too familiar. Is it likely, with the amputation and all? Probably not, but in any case impossible to verify. Finally I'd just like to point out this is about Bangladesh, not India, which is a completely different beast even if they look similar to the rest of the world. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: what I meant is that the description and the photo itself are at odds with each other (not just content-wise). On one hand the photo itself is very distant, lacking any intimacy (especially the other 2 in the series), like the photographer was only interested in taking a good quality picture. On the other hand the story (true or not) is very intimate but this is not reflected in the visuals at all. I'd say a case of taking a picture for yourself for your own reasons, and you're only interested in the subject as a visual element. Thus my comment about the lack of humility. Again, I'd advise you to browse GMB Akash' pictures of Bangladeshi misery (no better way to put it), read the stories, and see how they connect in a very meaningful yet same time respectful manner, and how he finds the joy and humanity in even those unfortunate people/events. Or like him on Facebook he posts a picture with a story almost every day. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: First, although my !vote above seems to have started this cavalcade of opposes, I myself did not !vote oppose. Second, if by not participating in featuring this image I am saving lives, I'll take any term of abuse you hurl at me (I have opposed, at least initially, plenty of other FP candidates where I thought the photographer was putting themselves at risk). "Politically correct"? Apart from the increasing use of a once-ironic term borrowed from Chinese Communism becoming battered into meaninglessness when we use it for every point of view we wish to delegitimize without attempting to seriously attack the underlying arguments (to the point that it's often a tacit admission the other side has a point you don't want it to have), I fail to see what is "political" about a very real danger. If National Geographic is not immune from this criticism, why should we be? Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed my comment above. Yann (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I even support the nomination...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Not featuring a photograph is not censorship, and not encuraging photographers to get themself killed and traumatizing other people in doing so has hardly anything to do with political correctness. IMHO. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the censorship argument would make sense if we were voting to delete or keep this image. But this image and its story will stay available on this site long after this vote. The selection of featured pictures is clearly very strategic and is evidently about advertising the project just as much as identifying technical quality. There is evidence to suggest this could harm the project, so it is for that reason that I don't think this should be featured. Seb26 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not oppose on grounds of "political correctness" but rather because it's 1) somewhat dishonest and 2) lacking in my opinion (see my reply to Ikan). Besides the concerns about the backstory are valid as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Robiul3.jpg&oldid=242457710"