Category talk:Armpits of male humans

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

New cat

[edit]

See Category talk:Armpits. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Females featuring armpits

[edit]

This category is a disparagement of women, especially the categorized female athletes. Stepro (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro: So what do you think should be done? Delete the category? Merge it into Category:Female armpits? I would favor merging because I don't see any difference between the two. I do think it would be good to segregate the nude and partially nude images into a subcategory, though, so that people aren't confronted with them unexpectedly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete both. I don't see any encyclopedic, educational, or documentary use in this nonsense category. Commons isn't here to cater to any fetishes. Stepro (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There's no problem, just a problem of interpretation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoWings: Please be specific: what interpretation issue do you see? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing a "disparagement of women" is a question of interpretation. But we should create Category:Males featuring armpits to prevent such loose reading. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Question I described why I don't think that this category should be on Commons. The only "argument" for keeping is my "misinterpretation". So please describe the purpose for this category on Commons. --Stepro (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stepro: You speak about "disparagement" so tell us why it's disparagement. Objectively it's not, it just describes what it is. But it may be possible to replace "featuring" by another term if that is the problem.
    The purpose is to separate close-up photographs of armpits and photos where we see a woman with visible armpits (e.g. with hands up in the air). What's the problem with that?
    But I see you've got a problem with Category:Female armpits too and you talk about fetishes! Apparently you have two problems: 1) You see that as fetishes while it's just a way to categorize pictures about body parts ; 2) Even if it's fetishes, there's no problem with that, Commons isn't censored and can propose many subjects, includint fetishes. Apparently you don't seem to understand Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it exists, there's porn of it, is a well known phrase. One could expand it to, there's a fetish about it. There's nothing wrong with fetishes. But Commons is a pool of media with enzyclopedic value, that's the scope. Enzyclopedic in the sense of Wikipedia, not as an enzyclopedia of/for porn and fertishes. At least that's what I thought as a contributor since the beginning of this project. Fetishes may be the object of description, but we are not here to collect and provide - and categorize - images for fetishists. At least I can see no other purpose of this category. "it just describes what it is" and "it's just a way to categorize pictures about body parts" are just excuses.
    Another aspect, and I think that's where Stepro is coming from like myself, is that we, the photographers, have an obligation towards the people we take pictures of. For example we don't upload bad pictures (grimaces, Paparazzi shots etc.). I'd have a hard time explaining to one of the sportspeople or artists I photograph if they'd ask me why my pictures of them are categorized to please fetishists (on the other hand I have already stopped uploading some kinds of pictures to Commons because of the again and again disrespectful treatment of the picures respectively the people depicted).
    If we delete it the free knowledge that's at the core of all our Wiki projects won't be harmed. --Tsui (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoWings: You have now written again what you think I'm misinterpreting and that I wouldn't understand Commons - which I btw. consider it quite cheeky. However, you still haven't spelled out the encyclopedic, educational, or documentary purpose of this category. Stepro (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No effort from you. I won't continue to argue with such a person. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stepro, @TwoWings - There is only one purpose required for a category: That there be files which depict the topic represented by the category for which the category is useful to users who are seeking depictions of the given topic. It is the files which must meet the educational threshold to be hosted on Commons. If they are here, then it is automatically justified to have categories for them. If the files do not meet our guidelines, they should be deleted and the category will then necessarily be deleted as well. Josh (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, but what do you answer, to the complaint that it is the category, that takes the image out of the educational context it was intended for? Should the image be deleted, because the category it is beeing misused in should be deleted? Wuselig (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category is just one example of many on Commons in which people, particularly women, but also images of naked men, are categorized at a level of detail and emphasis on some physical aspect that on the one hand is only derogatory to the pictured person (I had to Remove pictures of me from the "Overweight Man" category already, I don't see it and I refuse to be categorized that way!). The emphasis on certain physical features or the incredibly detailed sorting of nudity - both are more reminiscent of fetishes than of factual sorting - contradict our own requirement to respect personal rights. In view of how negative the attitude towards pubic hair is in many societies - whether on the genitals or under the arms - such categories can only be understood as negative categories. Or as a gathering point for a fetish. Neither is the point of commons.
As photographers of people, we also have a duty to ensure that these people are not degraded to fetish objects. Just as I will not accept, for example, that pictures of women playing beach sports (beach volleyball, beach handball) that I took pictures of will end up in sexualized categories. It has to do with respect, but also with the fact that we otherwise make ourselves look ridiculous outside of the wiki projects, but also have to reckon with the consequences. After all, which organizers will still want to accredit us when they realize what's going on here in terms of degrading people?Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Tsui and @Marcus Cyron, that's exactly the problem I see. The so categorized sports women are not featuring their armpits, but they do their sports competitions. To put their pictures in this category is in my opinion a) very disrespectful und b) sexism. Stepro (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the photos are not the problem, only the categorization. There is a huge difference whether, for example, photos of women are showing also their breasts (of course they do), or whether a category claims that they present them - what they don't.
It is frightening that this apparent difference has yet to be explained at great length. --Stepro (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's like talking to a wall. You don't want to understand (or you only pretend not to understand). The problem are not the images. The proble is the categorization. For example a sportswoman has not to be categorized under "Females featuring armpits", "Females wearing bikinis" or something like that. The main subject and the main focus is sport, is a sportsperson. Not armpits. To reduce or to focus on such a detail is disgracing. It seems, some people here really want a shitstorm here. Or a Commons #metoo, where sexualized sportwomen tell the public, how Wikimedians on Commons treat them. Or men, as I told yesterday, also in the men's cat system there's a lot wrong and there's much sexualisation. Beginning with the standard image for Category:Nude males. Nude males are symbolized by a male torso with a full errect penis? What the hell is wring with this project? Some people here really should check their priorities.
To accuse censorship, even though nobody wants to delete such pictures, also speaks for itself. Apart from the fact that many have not understood what censorship is (Commons cannot censor, we are not an authority), we restrict various things anyway. Advertising, private pictures, ironically human nudity in photography, inflammatory propaganda, violations of rights at least in democracies, and a few other things. Not allowing every crap is a must, internal project hygiene. And that also applies to disparaging or off-topic categorizations. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The obcenity is not in the image, but in the labeling of the image in a context that has nothing to do with the person depicted. We are violating personal rights by putting these images into unfitting categories. In my opinion we should create some kind of mechanism on Commons that allows uploaders and users to block certain categories for specific images even in retrospect. I know there are people who will want to find certain images with certain features and as as tolerant person I am not going to judge their intentions. But in my opinion their right to find such images to please their pleasure should not outweigh the right of the depicted persons to become the target of such pleasures. As long as we do not have such a mechanism we should delete Categories like this one, that pretend something the depicted persons didn't do. In this case "feature" something! Wuselig (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not an educational category, not useful --Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I just found files in the uncreated category Category:Males featuring armpits, so I created the category. Whatever is done with the female category under discussion should probably be done with the male one as well. --
  •  Delete Useless duplicate of Category:Female armpits. Furthermore, I believe that the criteria for inclusion for Category:Female armpits should be made stricter. Only pictures where the armpit is clearly the main focus of the image, and its inclusion is not incidental, should be allowed in that category. I believe that illustrations of female armpits might be educationally useful, for example, for people studying anatomy, but only if the illustration was intentionally created for the express purpose of illustrating female anatomy. All female humans have armpits, and because of this, female armpits are likely to incidentally end up even in photographs that weren't originally intented for the purpose of illustrating the concept of armpits. Such pictures are poorly suited for the task of illustrating the concept of female armpits, and do not belong to Category:Female armpits or any of its possible subcategories. Chiolite (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for Category:Males featuring armpits and its parent category Category:Male armpits, I believe this exactly same argument applies.  Delete Category:Males featuring armpits as an unnecessary duplicate, and remove all of the "incidental" pictures from Category:Male armpits for not being actually useful for illustrating male anatomy. Chiolite (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for User:Stepro's original claim implied claim that the category contains pornography, a claim they later made explicitly, sorry Stepro, I looked at the images, and I did not see porn. I saw images of hardworking athletes and entertainers doing their jobs. I think there is an old joke that illustrates why the underlying issue here is your subjective interpretation.
highly relevant joke, about a psychiatrist assessing a new patient using the inkblot test
A psychiatrist explains to the new patient that, as part of reaching their initial diagnosis they are going to administer some standard diagnostic tests, starting with showing some inkblots, and then asking the patient what he sees.
The doctor starts showing the patient inkblots, and the patient calmly says: "Well, that first one? That is a man and woman fucking on a picnic blanket. That second one, shows a man and woman fucking in a canoe. This next one shows a man and woman fucking on a porch swing. The next one shows a man and woman fucking on the kitchen table...
At this point the doctor puts down the inkblots, and says, "Normally, I don't make a diagnosis until all the tests are complete. But, in your case, I think it is already clear... You are obsessed with sex."
At this the patient gets mad! "Jesus Christ Doc! I didn't come here to be insulted! I can't believe you said that to me! After all, they are your pictures!'"
Sorry Stepro, but I think you are seeing a pornography problem others of us don't recognize. Did you consider simply going through the images in the category, picking out those which you think clearly and unambiguously, to use your term, "disparage women"? You could then initiate a request to delete the small fraction of these images that you regard as a genuine problem. But, if you can't do that, or if you try that, and those discussions close with images being kept, then I think it would be clear those images should be categorized.
User:Marcus Cyron seems to claim there is a problem with "sexualized [images of] sportwomen". As per the point made in the joke, isn't this an issue within the perceiver, not with the images themselves?
Over a decade ago I took a dip into the long, ongoing battle, as to how many images related to human sexuality the commons should contain. Some participants in that battle are only prepared to agree to a very limited number. For other participants that limited number is zero.
I spent half an hour trying to figure out how many images there were in the subcategories for flowers - the sexual organs of flowering plants. Because some images of flowers were in multiple categories, I found it hard to give precise guess. But, at that time, there were at the very least tens of thousands of images that showed the sexual organs of plants, vastly outnumbering the number of images we had that showed the sexual organs of people. In my opinion it would be completely appropriate for the commons to have as many images that showed the sexual organs of humans as we had images showing the sexual organs of plants.
Why would it be useful, "in scope", to have categories that "feature" armpits? I invite people to use their imagination. Earth's population is what now? Something like 8 billion? And how many of those 8 billion are children? If you were a child, just going through puberty, who was growing up in a culture with hangups, so you had never seen an armpit with armpit hair, or the only time you saw armpit hair was when you glimpsed your disgusting older brother or older sister, after they took a shower, you could worry that this armpit hair made you a freak of nature. images featuring armpits, or even a commons category whose title said it featured armpit hair, could be highly useful to you, so you could reassure yourself the hair was normal, and you were not a freak.
There are probably at least 100 million children who find their bodies suddenly sprouted unexpected hair in their armpits, and elsewhere, who benefit from images that showed armpit hair was natural.
So, no, I do not agree at all with Stepro's censorship efforts. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never written anything about pornography, and I have no problem with it.
This is about disrespect for women, especially female athletes.
I will no longer comment on posts at this abysmal level. Stepro (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Not to understand, that a sexual reduction of women (and of course of men too) to their body parts has really nothing to do with "There are probably at least 100 million children who find their bodies suddenly sprouted unexpected hair in their armpits, and elsewhere, who benefit from images that showed armpit hair was natural" is not my problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople lifting their arms on the finishing line or throwing balls are not featuring their armpits. This is the misinterpretation. --Ailura (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro, Auntof6, Ailura, Geo Swan, TwoWings, and Marcus Cyron:

It has been a couple of years now for this one, and I would like to resolve this CfD. It seems that the discussion of whether or not this category is disparaging to women has derailed us from the simple question of whether we should upmerge this category Category:Females featuring armpits into Category:Armpits of female humans. Perhaps we can resolve this without accusations of other users' intentions, and simply focus on whether or not this category is redundant on objective grounds.

I would support such an upmerge. I presume that Females featuring armpits is meaning files depicting female humans with their armpit(s) visibly depicted in the photo (or other medium). This is no different than the scope of Armpits of female humans which depict the armpit(s) of female humans visibly in the photo (or other medium). Thus with no distinction from the parent category, this category should be deleted and its contents moved to Category:Armpits of female humans. Josh (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have also added this CfD tag to cover Category:Males featuring armpits, as I believe whatever is decided should probably apply to both female and male categories. As such I would support upmerging Category:Males featuring armpits into Category:Armpits of male humans. Josh (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, thank you so much for taking on this decision!
Looking back, one question remains unanswered for me: what is this category even good for? Everyone has armpits, and so armpits are depicted in almost every photo of a person. I have asked several times in this now long discussion what encyclopaedic, educational or other purpose such a category could have in the context of our scope. Unfortunately, I have only received insults, but no factual answers. “We categorize it because it can be categorized” is not an argument for keeping it, at least for me. So my initial question is still open to me. I still see no reason for such a category, whatever you want to name it. Stepro (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepro, unfortunately I've seen such behavior derail or delay many an earnest discussion. As to your question, I would only say that I think it is well established to categorize images of humanity based on a general educational aspect of learning about the human body and depicting the myriad of different ways the human body can manifest, both in a physical or biological way as well as in cultural and social contexts. I think it is for this reason why further diffusion by age and gender is warranted, as these elements inform those previously mentioned baseline concepts. I of course agree with you that we shouldn't categorize 'just because we can', but an educational basis, even if it is very niche and not realized by a significant number of users, should be sufficient to overcome this bar. I also get that some users may have non-educational uses for the files, but this is outside of our control and should not influence our categorization scheme.
However, just to fully understand your comment, if it is demonstrated these categories do not serve a sufficient purpose, it would sound like you are proposing deletion of all of these categories: Female humans featuring armpits, Males featuring armpits, Armpits of female humans, and Armpits of male humans (not to mention other similarly constituted categories). Is this a correct assessment of your position? Josh (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stepro, you wrote "I have asked several times in this now long discussion what encyclopaedic, educational or other purpose such a category could have..."

    Bzzzt.

    Something prevented you from reading and understanding the clear good faith answers of people like myself. You called this comment of mine "abysmal".

  1. Pre-pubescent human females do not have hair in their armpits.
  2. Hundreds of millions of pre-pubescent human females live in regions where they do not receive meaningful sex education, and where every adult woman they know secretly shaves her armpits.
  3. Going through puberty can be very emotionally disruptive, particularly for those children who are unlucky enough to live somewhere where they do not receive meaningful sex education.
  4. As a service for those young readers it is essential we help them find images of female armpits, so they don't fear they are freaky mutants when they unexpectedly start sprouting hair in their armpits when they go through puberty.
Stepro, I think that, although you are an experienced contributor, you made a very common newbie mistake... well, actually, several common newbie mistakes.
  1. You assumed that a notion that seemed obvious to you was so obvious it did not require explanation, and you initiated a discussion that was deeply flawed because you didn't explain your reasoning.
  2. When good faith people asked civil reasonable questions, rather than make a belated attempt to explain yourself more clearly, you chose to interpret their good faith question as insults.
If you are going to continue to participate in discussions I am going to encourage you to make a greater effort to try to read and understand the good faith replies left for you.
I am going to particularly encourage you to be careful, if you ever initiate any more deletion discussions, to make a much better effort to explain your reasoning. This is an international project. Contributors come from all kinds of backgrounds and cultures, and it is mistake for you to expect everyone else to share the values you accepted from your cultural upbringing as too obvious to require explanation as too obvious to require explanation.
I am prepared to live in mystery as to why you believe categories like this disparage women
  • I am not wedded to any particular category name, so long as their are categories that aid good faith users of the commons to find the images they need that fit within the commons scope. Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepro and Joshbaumgartner:

Merge Category:Female humans featuring armpits and Category:Males featuring armpits to Category:Armpits of female humans and Category:Armpits of male humans respectively. I have no problems of categorizing media under Category:Armpits, as long as the subject is clearly visible.

Everyone has armpits, and so armpits are depicted in almost every photo of a person.

In this case, I prefer categorizing media showing either topless people or people wearing sleeveless clothing, as armpits would be more visible in these cases. Also, one or two of the arms should be raised for better visibility of armpits. These are some of the rough guidelines for categorizing media under Category:Armpits. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't know why Category:Human armpits redirects to Category:Armpits, since other animals can also have armpits. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I certainly agree that the subject must be depicted for media to be categorized under a topic. In this case, that is a reason why I think the parent category Armpits of female humans is superior to Female humans featuring armpits, in that in the former, the topic is "armpits" with the criteria being that they be of "female humans", while in the later, the topic is "female humans" with the criteria that they are "featuring armpits". As stated, pretty much everyone has armpits, so in ultimate inanity, in the later, one could find someone categorizing Michelle Obama under Female humans featuring armpits on the grounds that she does indeed have them. I don't think any of us want that! In Armpits of female humans, it is more clear that the subject is the armpits themselves, so if one cannot clearly see them in the image, it does not belong. There is certainly a Commons-wide question on just exactly how prominent a subject must be in an image to warrant categorization, but that is a bigger issue than this CfD. I'm certainly not arguing that all current contents of this category really do belong here, I've seen a few questionable ones at least.
As for the question of Human armpits vs. Armpits: The current Armpits is described as a strictly human feature. I'm not sure if this is strictly correct, or if the term armpits is also used in biology to refer to non-human anatomy as well. I don't see any media in Armpits that depicts non-human armpits. If you are correct that other animals have armpits, but we just don't have any identified images of such, perhaps we should reverse the redirect and the main category should become Human armpits. When other species' armpit images are identified, Armpits can become the parent at that point for those images along with Human armpits. However, until we actually identify these, it seems rather an academic question at this point. Josh (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner Thank you for reply. As said before, the minimum criteria for categorizing a file under Category:Armpits should be as follows:
  1. At least one person depicted in the file is either topless or wearing sleeveless clothing, as armpits are visible in this case.
  2. One or two arms of at least one person is raised.
If the armpits are covered by clothing, the file is not eligible for Category:Armpits. I've provided an example of it below. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 So in other words, there must be an armpit depicted for the file to be categorized in Armpits. Isn't that the standard rule for every media category on Commons? Josh (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Anastasiia Hotfrid Rio2016.jpg is categorized under Category:Armpits of female humans, but the armpit is not really visible, since the female in the photo is wearing half-sleeve clothing. On the other hand, 2018-10-11 Snatch (Weightlifting Girls' 58kg) at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics by Sandro Halank–038.jpg is also categorized under Category:Armpits of female humans and the armpit is clearly visible, since the female in the photo is wearing sleeveless clothing. I think the armpit should be clearly visible to merit categorization. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I certainly agree with your example. It is not the only one. However, step one is defining the category, and only after that can we really start policing the contents. Josh (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: After going through the subcats of Category:Clothed people, I found that both clothed and bare armpits can be covered in the Category:Armpits category. Since we have both Category:Bare human buttocks and Category:Clothed human buttocks, we can also have Category:Bare armpits and Category:Clothed armpits. This way, we can keep bare armpits separate from armpits covered by clothing. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT viewers with fetishes...
Some contributors here seem to be saying something like "People with fetishes embarrass me. When we have categories that are useful to people with fetishes we should delete those categories."
I think that goes way too far. Categories that serve people with fetishes, that are not in scope, should be deleted. However, when a category is in scope the assumption that the category might also be helpful to people with fetishes should be irrelevant. But, since we should always delete categories that are not in scope, the fact that they are useful to people with fetishes is irrelevant.
While I am not an expert on the psychology of fetishes, I think we need to recognize that people can acquire fetishes on items that most of us consider pretty mundane.
Shoes, and bare feet, are good examples. The fact that there are people who have fetishes over images of bare feet would be a terrible reason to delete images of bare feet, or to delete categories of images of bare feet.
For centuries there was a practice, in Imperial China, of binding the feet of female children, so that when they grew up they had very tiny feet. Those tiny feet were deformed, their function was impaired, and they required extra care. This was not a harmless fetish, so I am relieved it seems to have completely died out. However, even if it had not died out, I think images of deformed bound feet would be in scope, even if the viewers of those images included people with that fetish, over and above those viewing them for reasons we would consider in scope.
Do some of us live in cultures where there is a fetish for high-heeled shoes for women - shoes that hurt women's feet, and impair their ability to walk, while being worn? I think the answer to that is "yes". That is not a reason to delete images of women wearing high-heeled shoes, or the categories for high-heeled shoes. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a tolerant person, and therefore I don't look down on people with fetishes. And if we think we need images that cater these images that is fine with me. But what I do object is if people who have nothing to do with these fetishes, and have no intention of being object of these fetishes are involuntarily made object of such fetishes. That is against their personality rights. And that is the point that Stepro made above. He is a sports photographer who wants to make good sport photography. To do so he also needs the trust of the sports people he photographs. He will loose this trust, if the sportspersons he photographs find themselves displayed in contexts they don't want to be seen in. They are sportspersons and not fetish-models. Wuselig (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your explanation of Stepro's concerns. Perhaps they could return here and confirm or refute if this is what really concerned them.
Often when contributors say something like, "I can't imagine a legitimate use for this image, this article..." all they are revealing is, well, a failure of imagination.

I suggested that aiding girls on the brink of puberty in privately confirming the hair they see growing in their armpits does not make them a freak. I am confident I established the images, and the category, is in scope.

I don't see anyone offering me a serious counter-argument.

  • People get fetishes about less private things than armpits -- like shoes. I asserted we shouldn't start deleting images or categories about mundane things, based solely on notions people with fetishes are using them -- when those images and categories are in scope. Were you planning on offering a counter-argument to this suggestion?
  • WRT "Personality rights"...
Yes, I took a brief look at User:Stepro, and saw they uploaded a lot of images of sports figures.
I think you are claiming Stepro can't upload images of sports figures if they worry that a very small number of people won't be using those images for in SCOPE purposes, but will instead fetishize them.
I think you are claiming Stepro would be happy uploading the same images, images that a very small number of people might fetishize, providing those inclined to fetishize them had to work harder to find them. Is that what you meant?
I suggest that having people admire your body, or parts of your body, is an occupational hazard of being a sports figure. I think it would be unreasonable of the sports figures Stepro photographs to expect that Stepro could guarantee no one with a fetish would ever admire their armpits.
  • About 15 years ago I started a wikipedia article on a Native American polymath, Dawn Dumont. She was a lawyer, actor, writer, stand-up comic. I started to really admire her, as I worked on her article. We had a couple of images of her, and I used one of those to illustrate the article.
Ms Dumont didn't like the freely re-usable images we had of her. She uploaded her favourite selfie, and edited the article to use it, instead. She did not, however, release her favourite selfie under a free license, so it was deleted after seven days, just like every other improperly licensed image.
So, then she went to en.wiki's help page, where she said she wanted the article about her to be deleted, because she thought she was entitled to have sole control of her public image.
My feelings were hurt. I considered, nevertheless, trying to guide her through the process of requesting courtesy deletion of the Dawn Dumont article. I considered trying to explain to her that, since she had performed in public, published books, she was a public figure, and could not expect to control her public image. This is why wealthy public figures hire publicists. However, I realized that, since I was the sole contributor to the article, I could request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7.
Public figures, like the sports figures Stepro likes to photograph, don't control, can't expect to have sole control, over their public images.
  • So, Wuselig, are you suggesting that the "personality rights" of these sports figures are more than mere courtesies, that they have available to them some kind of legal recourse through which they can have a court require the deletion of properly licensed images of themselves, if they were concerned those images were being viewed by a small number of people with a fetish?
I personally think the {{Personality rights}} tag should be deprecated.
I personally think the {{Personality rights}} tag should be deprecated.
When I looked at it I found some people think it should be slapped on every image that contains human beings. They don't seem to realize that this would mean slapping it on something half our images. I object to this for several reasons, including, it would require squandering hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time, that would be better spent on more important tasks. Second, if the tag was on half our images regular users of the wikimedia commons would have learned to just tune it out, and ignore it.
I've also discussed the utility of the personality rights tag with people who use it much more selectively. One guy told me he only applied the tag to sexually charged images where he thought there was some reason to wonder if the models had actually given their consent. Second, he applied the tag to images of children.
  • The Donald Trump Campaign recently photo-shopped images of very popular singer Taylor Swift, putting a Donald Trump hat on her head, and having her wear other Trump paraphrenalia, implying she supported the Trump campaign. That was deeply unethical, particularly since she has publicly spoken against him. We may find it is illegal too, if she takes him to court.
The tiny grain of value in the personality rights tag seems to warn people not to pull stunts like that pulled by the Trump campaign. But is that a useful warning? Sensible, honest people don't require a warning not to pull stunts like that. Insensible, dishonest people will pull stunts like that, even if they are warned not to. So, the warning is pointless.
Most of our images are free because they were released under a free license, like cc2.0sa. The conditions re-users have to comply by are in the license. We don't redundantly add instructions for people who re-use cc2.0sa images that they have to link to the original source, when they re-use the image. We don't tell them they have to explicitly link to the cc2.0sa license page. Similarly, I don't think we should explicitly warn our re-users not to break the law by stating or implying the person whose image they are re-using endorses a position they don't endorse. Geo Swan (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wuselig, I mentioned Taylor Swift, above. I suggest that, in addition to a small number of admirers with fetishes who admire her, she is admired by a very large number of vanilla heterosexual admirers. Agreed?
I suggest it is not only female athletes who can't reasonably expect to control which of their admirers get to admire them. Taylor Swift doesn't get to control what her vanilla heterosexual admirers admire.
Consider an ordinary woman, attending her 20th high school re-union. Is she going to welcome the guys she dated in high school coming up to her, and telling her she is as attractive as she was 20 years previously? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she is only going to appreciate compliments from the guys she now thinks were nice guys. Or consider the woman had been a forgotten wallflower, an ugly duckling, in high school, who blossomed into a Swan, in College? Might she welcome compliments from everyone in her year?
I won't claim to know how often women welcome the admiration of all their admirers.
I will assert that not being able to control the images their admirers admire is not just limited to female sports figures. I will assert that no woman, who is a public figure, can fully control how they are admired.
Wuselig, can you explain how female sports figures merit altering our policies to protect their feelings, in ways we can't offer to other women? Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously a person of many words. I am not going to go into every detail of these. I just want to point out one detail in the name of the category which is "featuring". Featuring means voluntarily exhibiting (in other senses also producing) something. So if you look at the female humans in this category, there are some that are volunarily posing in ways that would permit the use of the term "featuring". And there others that are caught in the act of doing something where they are accidently, or just momentarily caught in the moment of doing something very different. They are clearly not featuring their armpits, they just show in this particular moment.
As regards to the {{Personality rights}} Template, I believe it is one of the most important templates here on Commons in regards of depictions of human beings. It protects individuals in accordance with Articles 1 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that their dignity will not be violated. And that means that an image here on Commons will not be allowed to be used out of context either within our Wikimedia Projects, nor outside of them. Wuselig (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Wuselig, he got to the heart of the matter. We have to respect personal rights on Wikimedia Commons, whether you like it or not. Stepro (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you are asking for extraordinary protections, without making the effort to make extraordinary arguments to justify those extraordinary protections.
  • @Stepro, clarification, you seem to be saying you are calling for the deletion of any category whose name includes the word "armpit", and also includes the word "woman" or "female", even when that category is clearly in scope and is otherwise policy compliant.
I don't think you can ask the rest of us to agree to that, just to keep you happy.
@Stepro, you approach female sports figures, and explicitly request their permission to take their pictures. When you do so, do you promise them something like "I assure you, when I upload your image to the commons, no creepy fetishist will ever get sexual gratification from that image"? I don't think you can make censorship promises like that.
Your concern triggered me to do some web searches. I can confirm, to everyone else, people do have armpit fetishes, people do talk about armpit fetishes. There is even a specific technical name for this fetish. I saw that fit, beautiful actress Jeffifer Lawrence once commented that she hadn't worn a particular red carpet outfit to excite those interested in "armpit vaginas". Yew.
My web searches also confirmed more mundane body parts for which there were fetishes people talked about... including navels, elbowss, knees, ears.
@Stepro, I want you to think of a sound bite first uttered about 50 years ago, by Pierre Trudeau, before he was Prime Minister of Canada, he was Canada's Minister of Justice. As Minister of Justice he introduced legislation decriminilazing sexual activities that, in 2024, are widely accepted. Fifty years ago, and earlier, all kinds of sexual activity was subject to draconian punishments.
Trudeau said "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
In 2024 sexual assault is a criminal offense. Sexual touching that doesn't measure up to sexual assault is an offense. Depending where one lives, people are protected against being the target of unwanted sexualized comments. Leering at people is not a criminal offense, but is treated as socially unacceptable, in most parts of the world...
I suggest, however, that neither the state, or WMF projects, should try to control how otherwise law-abiding people think about their own personal sexuality. @Stepro, if you want to promise the female sports figures you photograph that no one will ever think about them in a sexual context, isn't that what you are trying to do? Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to deal with endless texts in which words are twisted around my mouth and completely abstruse accusations are made. Everything necessary has been said. Stepro (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepro, you initiated this discussion, but you never explained your reasoning clearly.
You have gotten angry when people have made reasonable, civil requests for you to explain your reasoning more fully and clearly.
In general, if you are unable to explain yourself, or you are unwilling to fully explain yourself, I suggest you simply refrain from initiating deletion discussions. The first weakness of this deletion discussion is that you believe your reasoning is too obvious to require explanation. The assumptions you seem to think are too obvious to require explanation are, IMO, not only not obvious, they are incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Period. End. Stepro (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he did, and all who voted to delete this category understood him very well! Have you ever considered, that you are walking down the wrong path?--Wuselig (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, you are a person of many words. Also using the plural when stating your arguments, you also try to assert that "you" represent many. You do not win arguments by verbal diarrhea, or as we say in German "totlabern" (jabber to exhaust till extinction). So I will not add any more unnecessary words, but just my descission in this matter, which shouldn't surprise you:  Delete Wuselig (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions
Participants
NotesAlthough Stepro nominated this category as a "disparagement" for women, especially female athletes, the rationale for many of the delete !votes (excluding mine) is that it is redundant to Category:Armpits of female humans (previously Category:Female armpits). Only two users (TwoWings, Geo Swan) have defended this category (and its male equivalent), but their arguments are not deemed convincing in light of this discussion. There's also a consensus to make the criteria of Category:Armpits and its subcats stricter, which I'll compose soon.
Closed bySbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC) (involved closure)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Armpits_of_male_humans&oldid=949467218"