Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/File:Tribu Laarim, Kimotong, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-24, DD 51.jpg

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

Commons:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Cmao20, Poco a poco and Ikan Kekek, Some people love colonial style (Wikipedia) and hate colonialist style. This edit pretending "There are a few that have the colonialist style" in Poco a poco's images could prove damaging for the project, and extremely hurting for the photographer. Thus the template {{Redacted}} will be used to hide the denigrating qualifier and save the photographer from potential embarrassment. I think that Poco a poco has received enough personal criticism as hurtful as it is unjustified, and that harassment is not legitimate on Wikimedia Commons. Read COM:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL: "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts" and COM:FPC: "Above all, be polite - Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work." Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're seeking to censor discussion of styles, and that's wrong. Secondly, if you think it's somehow unbearable to mention colonial style, delete your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, @Ikan Kekek, there's a major difference between "colonial style" and "colonialist style". And that's the point. For example this painting from 1913 is in the colonial style. But the painter is not a "colonialist".
Secondly, which post are you talking about? This one? We can talk of everything, and Wikipedia is here to document many concepts. But implying abjections through personal attacks in the talk pages is not okay. There are rules and guidelines on this platform for participating -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More examples

This image is about sex, but definitely not "sexist".

Words have meaning. There is no reason to bring the "colonial topic" in this nomination in my opinion, but as long as the comments are fair and respectful, all discussions are allowed. My opinion is 1) colonial era is over, 2) this portrait here nominated has no link with this period, 3) the style is personal.

For weird reason, offbeat discussions and links appeared (again) on this nomination, it's already annoying and unnecessary enough, but the allegation "There are a few that have the colonialist style" is scandalous for me, because it clearly says that some of the photographer's images are "colonialist". Not only an obvious error but above all a pretty serious political assumption, and a very degrading judgment for the author / uploader. If FP participants see "colonial" things here, that's in their own head, coming from their own neural connexions, but not a generality. Certainly not a truth. Moreover, if such neural connexions occur, first, that's not the fault of the photographer, secondly, shortcuts like "I imagine colonization in my mind, therefore your pictures are colonialist", are pure madness. For example this building photographed in 2018 is colonial, but the photographer is not a "colonialist". The style is not "colonialist", and even if you disagree, it would be incredible to pretend being able to explain that pushing the shutter button of a camera this way makes the style "colonialist" in 2018, whatever the subject. People, landscapes, animals, plants, objects, everything -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Basile's proposal for redaction, but I too see the need for being more respectful to authors. I'm glad we're discussing issues of race and gender, but assuming that anything that is said about a photograph has no bearing on the photographer is a pretty low bar for what doesn't constitute ad hominem. If someone, for whatever reason, found this image racist, I would assume that I was being called a racist too, and regard any claims to the contrary as either naïve or disingenuous. I stopped reading Twitter a few years ago because it had become such a cesspool of vitriol. These days, I find myself procrastinating reading or commenting on FCP, and I wonder why anyone still has the fortitude to submit images that go beyond the safe mix of architecture, landscape, and wildlife. Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you allow someone saying your picture is racist, segregationist, negationist, Islamist, or else, under the pretext that all discussion is legitimate and that freedom of speech is essential, then you also accept that the photographer is assimilated to a racist, a segregationist, a negationist, an Islamist, etc. No, there needs to be a certain decency and a minimum of restraint. For readers like me who are very far from adhering to the discourse, I can tell you that this relentlessness is starting to become unbearable.
There are so many positive things we could highlight in the approach of the photographer here. Intrepidity yes, but also the fact that these African tribes are rare, few in number, often in decline, and therefore precious, the fact that one must be able to integrate into the group, etc.
Would you tolerate a review asserting with confidence that this image is racist? No. The "colonial" debate is very inappropriate in my personal opinion, but "colonialist" is just shocking. It's important to choose the words carefully. Tolerating contempt would result in diminishing the photographer, while the upload is positive, and besides it is not even his personal nomination. Poco has just had the bad luck to see his beautiful photo nominated -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a photo is in a colonial style (colonialist, whatever, as I fail to see a clear difference, despite what you posted above) or a style that can be shown to be similar to photographs taken in Livingstonia in 1910 is not the same as saying that the photographer is himself a coloni(ali)st or a racist, and while I absolutely agree with being respectful of photographers, and indeed I'm very thankful that Poco went to South Sudan and took these very valuable photos which I voted to feature, I don't think that people in general are such delicate flowers that we should do anything that to me smacks of making it off-limits to use words that might cause a small amount of discomfort to, say, white, straight, more or less culturally Christian men, whom I don't think need special protection from references to historical events their ancestors or countries may have taken part in or their continued reverberations today. You are free to try to get agreement on a difference between colonial and colonialist in a discussion, rather than by trying to enforce a lack of discussion that makes you uncomfortable, which would have the effect of enforcing a continuation of things as they are without examination, and I think you might understand that from my standpoint as an American, that kind of thinking reminds me of the standards of discussion that used to be enforced in the South, and which a large number of white people in this country are fighting to reinstitute and enforce in as many states as possible and then the nation, because they want to have an unchallenged right to dominate and not ever be called out on it or have anyone's consciousness be raised about it. I don't write these words lightly, because while your English is really excellent, I think that partly because it's not your native language, you have repeatedly misunderstood things I've written as meaning something other than exactly what I wrote, and I predict that you will accuse me of saying that you are racist, rather than thinking about the way I see this due to my background and the context in which I live, which is different from yours. And that's partly the point: the differences between us are a strength that allows for new thinking, not something to stamp out in order to enforce an official orthodoxy of the dominant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ikan for having the time and strength to add some common sense to the discussion. And Basile, you should stop policing other people's edits without notifying them. You can't keep setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner for things you don't like or disagree with here on Commons. And all these endless rantings... they only drive people away from the FPC. --Cart (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, it is important to spare photographers, as well as readers, from hurtful terms. For example, "necrophilic" was just a provocation in this nomination, and the {{Redacted}} template necessary too. At least never contested. Here the word "problematic" is now replacing the template, the meaning is different and more neutral (though subjective).
Ikan Kekek, the difference between "colonial" and "colonialist" is the same as between "Islamic" and "Islamist". If you say to a Muslim "Your house has an Islamic style", perhaps the owner will be flattered, whereas if you say "Your house has an Islamist style", you are almost suggesting that the owner is a terrorist, or someone with strong belief that Islam should influence political systems, i.e. a source of embarrassment. The nuance can turn out to be crucial, and I think it was crucial here too to point out the issue.
The Euphemism "people in general are such delicate flowers" is far from reality. The problem was serious enough so that Poco 1) finds necessary to raise the difficulty on the FP talk page 2) warns us that less images of this kind will be uploaded, 3) almost withdrew and took a long break. Proof that the accumulation of these references are truly toxic, or too poorly managed. This discreet aside, disconnected from the flow of exchanges on the main page, allows in my opinion to maintain a civil atmosphere, and to keep on Commons talented photographers, who can publish any type of content, people but also buildings, wild animals, panoramas, fish in their natural environment, etc. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to disagree (and will), but I think some discussions are more important than a single picture. Also, I understand your distinction between Islamic and Islamist, but I don't think that people in general will agree with your distinction between colonial and colonialist. And what I also think is that this line of discussion for whatever reason (and I honestly don't really really know why) hit a nerve with you, because you haven't dropped it and moved on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: I hope Poco continues to submit wonderful, valuable photos to FPC. He was challenged but got overwhelming support, so that should help him to carry on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I hope so too. But generous contributions are neither due nor guaranteed -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you think, I'm often moving on, while following some pages in parallel.
Good news you catch the difference between Islamic and Islamist. The first definition of colonialist in the Cambridge dictionary is: "a supporter of colonialism". While in 2024, this term carries a pejorative connotation. Moreover, this is an unfounded assumption about the political views of a participant photographer. Would you like the same tag pinned for you? And especially if to this is added a whole bunch of dismaying links, intended to support the point? So a little delicacy and good manners -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point was about the style of the photograph, not the politics of the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Julesvernex2 says above "assuming that anything that is said about a photograph has no bearing on the photographer is a pretty low bar for what doesn't constitute ad hominem. If someone, for whatever reason, found this image racist, I would assume that I was being called a racist too, and regard any claims to the contrary as either naïve or disingenuous" It would be bad faith to pretend the image has a "colonialist style" without insinuating more or less directly that the photographer's style is colonialist. You have to be consistent -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine what this woman would think if she happened to read and understand the main discussion. Or a neighbor or a friend. Nice portrait and she's among the 160,000 to 200,000 people living in the Lopit area, in the Lopit mountains. She's a member of a tribe in Sudan. It's not "colonialism" there. Don't you think it is very contemptuous, and almost humiliating to be thus associated with a dominated people, while you feel free, with your free will, in modern history? These people dance, play music, have fun, simply live, and through an authentic portrait, someone is seeing you as a person from times gone by, hmm? That's not very respectful for the woman herself, I think. These awkward connections which give rise to ideas of power relations between people are not friendly, in my opinion. Or, they lack diplomacy. Let's put things in real context to fully understand talent and grasp rare beauty -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can imagine, but that's not a justification for attempting to censor discussion. If you want to change Commons policies about censorship, you are going to need to start a thread on an appropriate policy page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the "necrophilic" example, that is less charged with passion. Do you mean that everybody should read this speech, for the sake of a sacred discussion, wonder to oneself whether or not this picture has a necrophilic style? Offer to the writer a platform to express one's ideas? Warn the photographer that some observers feel "sick" in front of this "ukro-color scheme"?
Sorry but the same happened here. I think you should not be allowed to drop a "colonialist" tag slightly like that on every Poco's nominations. Nor a "racist" either.
Three people have been notified, this discussion has been initiated, then the word sensibly changed. Now my recommendation is to express certain ideas with care, and not to forget there are humans behind and in front of the cameras. Read our Wikimedia Foundation Non-Discrimination Policy: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of race, color, [...] national origin, citizenship [...]" Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if you want to establish the kind of censorship you want, you have to discuss that elsewhere or go elsewhere to convince a consensus of at least admins that calling the style of a photo colonialist violates a non-discrimination policy, which is absurd. I have said my piece and will respectfully decline to reply to further comments on this exhausted topic here, where no new policy will be established. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Non-discrimination policy is related to the "white people", "white explorer", "white supremacist", "white gaze", etc. on the previous nomination, insisting heavily on the fact that Diego has (allegedly) the wrong skin color.
  2. Commons:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment. Everyone should exercise moderation in this unhealthy game of one-upmanship with provocation.
  3. You seem angry, despite my efforts to exchange and be polite. Have a nice day -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal style

This portrait has a personal style. It is showing an elderly woman with dignity, in a daily activity. When nominating / reviewing a picture like that, you usually expect to find comments and links related to this specific image. Why not trying to describe this style, particularly? Honest and authentic work, in my view. Angle, light, sharpness, composition, etc. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tribu_Laarim,_Kimotong,_Sudán_del_Sur,_2024-01-24,_DD_51.jpg&oldid=861732905"