File talk:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg

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

Nop[edit]

I see that this photo is impolite and can be شهوة for someones please don't put it on the photo of the day Kylieom (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, I do not see the educational or scientific value of these kind of pictures on Wikimedia Commons, so I also do not understand why it is here. Can it be deleted? SIryn (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about removal from the homepage. Deletion is unnecessary. Jane023 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a piece of art, the image has a place on Wikipedia. That place, however, is not the front page, as then it becomes an objectification of women. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to give a new Wikipedia user advice about not uploading copyrighted images to Commons and give them a link to Commons where they can find free images, but I don't want to put a link to a nude image on their talk page so I decided not to give advice at all. -kyykaarme (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can do it now. Instead of showing an impudent woman who dares to be uncovered (should have at least an apron on — how can she make a proper sammich supine like that, anyway!?), today’s photo shows a harmless and totally not offensive fighter airplane. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SIryn: That's an interesting argument, but I'm afraid that it might be biased by personal views of morality, not science. Why would a random beautiful featured landscape photo be more educational or scientifically valuable than an image showcasing Chiaroscuro and Low-key photography? Did you know about these two terms? Because if not, you might have now learned something from this image. It might just have proved to be more educational than you originally expected it to be. Clin ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is effectively an advertisement for the work of a commercial photographer so I tend to think it was not suitable for the main page. (2) Objectifying yes, but photographers sometimes objectify all sorts of images, see Sunbaker and Nautilus. Thincat (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and of course it is ridiculous to expect that the entire list of featured images is suitable for the main page. Images can become featured for all sorts of reasons, but that does not mean that "featured on Commons" implies "featured on the main page of Commons". If you had a place to gather objections this would probably become more apparent. I can imagine people wanting more images of cats than dogs, or apples than oranges, but the thing is, you now have no idea whatsoever, and the decision is only made on a per-image basis with a committee of 5-10 people for an audience of thousands (considering most people are blissfully unaware that there is a homepage for commons at all). Jane023 (talk)
I’m well aware that Commons has a Main Page, just like any wiki; I simply never need to visit it. I also have no interest in whatever shows up on it — but people who feel offended should mount guard in the PotD discussions and ward off any impoliteness that might arise. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Nude_recumbent_woman_by_Jean-Christophe_Destailleur.jpg&oldid=305370132"