Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prostitution in Raval.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Prostitution in Raval.JPG

[edit]

As a nom, I'm just going to mostly reuse the earlier deletion nom of Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn: Although it's perfectly possible that these people are actually sex workers, there is no evidence provided that they are. Since the photo was taken recently, at least some of them will still be living people today - and at least some of them are identifiable. I guess we could rename the photograph to not include prostitutes in the name - but then it would be an out of scope personal photo with no likely educational use anyway. On any other project, describing particular living people as prostitutes without a RS stating such would not only be instantly removed, but probably suppressed. The small black boxes on some faces is far from enough to make the people un-identifiable. It's in violation of the Board's BLP resolution and of Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and should thus be deleted Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Kevin Gorman: , is this nomination -- your first in quite a while -- related to the points you are trying to make in this extensive email list thread, currently underway? If so, it might be helpful for you to say so. That would explain why you put in the otherwise gratuitious "any other project" part, which is demonstrably false considering that this file (268 views here last month) is currently used to illustrate both the German Wikipedia (570 views last month) and the Polish Wiktionary, identifying the women as prostitutes.
But never mind all that -- I agree with your points. Merely blacking out the eyes is not enough to make the women non-identifiable; and now that the file has been picked up by multiple web sites outside the Wikimedia family, further efforts to obscure the identities of the women, or to remove the label "prostitute," would be futile. The file should be  Deleteed as a violation of COM:IDENT. -Pete F (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Peteforsyth: - I do not believe that the existence of an ongoing discussion elsewhere is relevant to this deletion nom. The text of this nom is also, as mentioned, more or less an explicit copy of the rationale I used on a photograph years ago. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I have your reasoning here right @Russavia: , you are saying that it is acceptable to label living, identifiable individuals as prostitutes based solely on the fact that they are standing on a street known to be a red light district? You're right in pointing that the country specific requirements are also important/relevant, but could please explicitly clarify whether or not I interpreted the first half of your statement correctly? (Tangent: I got a concussion last night, and will primarily be staying out of Wikimedia related business for the next ~48 hours since concussions do funny things. And then, ironically, I'll probably upload a photo of the effected part of my face to Commons, since we seem to not have many pictures of injuries that cause concussions.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone just clarified to me, I misread your post slightly, since, you're right, the photo doesn't label any particular individual a prostitute. However, the photo is clearly intended to indicate that at least some if not all of the identifiable people in the photo are prostitutes. So let me reword: do you think it's okay to label groups of living identifiable people as prostitutes or otherwise involved in prostitution without evidence? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here on Commons, when looking at whether media is suitable for hosting, the first thing we look at is whether it is appropriately licenced, or whether it is a copyright violation. If it is a copyright violation, it is deleted, much like this file was. If it is appropriately licenced, we then look at whether the photo was taken in a private or public place. If taken in a private place with an expectation of privacy, if there was consent or no expectation of privacy we keep it, if not we delete it. If taken in a public place, we use Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements to determine whether consent to take the photo and to publish is required. If consent is required to take the photo and to publish it, unless consent can be shown (or reasonably inferred) to have been granted, we delete it. Any images that are kept should have {{Personality}} and {{Consent}} applied as appropriate. Now, the issue that you are talking about is something I don't especially feel the need to comment on as it is not pertinent to this particular image, and I would rather talk in realities than in hypotheticals and irrelevancies because every image is different.
But I do have an example for you Kevin that you might want to look at and if you'd prefer to wait until you are no longer suffering from concussion that would be fine. (Sorry to hear about that, and hope you are ok and recover quickly). File:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.jpg is the image in question. I'd also prefer that you don't reply here, but perhaps on wikimedia-l or elsewhere on Commons at a venue to be decided by you. But, in asking for your comment, I'd like you to put your "Commons" hat on and opine on this image the way that we would do so here on Commons. Feel free to drop me a link to the wikimedia-l or Commons venue you choose to opine on this image at. russavia (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the consent violation is sufficient to delete the file, then why was the first half of your post explicitly defending the behavior of the uploader, and pretty explicitly saying you're fine with labeling identifiable living people/groups of people as prostitutes without backing? It's pretty confusing to have a local sysop do that and then refuse to answer further questions about their viewpoint on the grounds that it's not pertinent. If it's not pertinent, why did you write the first half of your vote? The photo you linked is sourced to the state department, and I have significantly more faith in the state department's statements about living people than those of a random person uploading a photo to commons. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, if we are going to delete files on Commons, I prefer that files are deleted for the right reasons, and I adhere to the KISS principle. In my opining delete, which is done in my capacity as an editor, and not a sysop, I had to make it clear that we don't have to consider the reasoning upon which brought you to nominate this file. This is not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of other editors, and also for the admin who does close this discussion has a reminder that our files are deleted for the right reasons. russavia (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops are generally expected to explain their actions when asked, rather than dancing around them, given the level of trust the tools entails. You weren't acting as a sysop when you made your comment, but a comment from a sysop that seems to say they are fine with violating COM:IDENT and the BLP resolution requires further explanation. Can you please just give a straight answer to this question, which is what I (and others) interpreted your initial words to mean: do you believe that labelling a identifiable group of individuals as engaging in prostitution without external evidence to that point is acceptable under Commons policy, and in compliance with the board resolutions regarding BLP issues? For the next 3-4 days, I'll mostly be confining my participation to the two DR's I started rather than dealing with the broader issues, which I'll come back to once concussion symptoms start to fade. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Russavia: , I think your explanation here is exemplary, thanks for explaining why you took this approach. @Kevin Gorman: I do think what Russavia said is pretty clear, but let me restate it, maybe this will help:
  • It may very well be that the principle you state is true, but it also could be that some unanticipated and exceptional circumstances would make it sensible to include a file like that, or require the principle to be fleshed out in a little more detail. So it's better to avoid making sweeping statements when the present matter doesn't require it. Consider this analogy: if somebody is arrested on charges of stealing $5 off your kitchen table, and in the course of the trial it becomes unequivocally evident that they actually stole $1000 worth of stuff out of your house including the $5, would you expect the court to continue investing its resources in the specific matter of the $5? Or would it make more sense to simply prosecute the encompassing issue, and leave the specifics of $5 bills unaddressed? -Pete F (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Peteforsyth: - you are right that the present discussion doesn't hinge on whether or not Russavia believes it's okay to label groups of identifiable living people as engaging in prostitution, since it's pretty clear the file in question here is going to be deleted. If Russavia had not directly brought up his apparent opinion that labeling groups of identifiable living people as engaging in prostitution is okay, I certainly wouldn't be asking about him about it. But given that someone holding advanced privileges on a project went out of their way to seemingly say that they believe such an action is a-okay, Russavia should either explain what he meant or confirm that my understanding of what he meant is correct, because someone who holds advanced privileges both has an obligation to explain their actions and comments to the community, and because if someone with advanced privileges *does* think that is okay, it's worrisome to say the least. It would take less time for him to do so than it would to continue to dance around the question. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what would take less time Kevin? Ignoring your attempts at putting words in my mouth, and taking this discussion off my watchlist, because it is now quite tedious to say the least. russavia (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Russavia: - I haven't really put any words in your mouth. In your initial vote, you explicitly supported the file name and actions of the uploader - to quote, "The uploader has done the right thing in applying cover to the eyes of the people, and no individual person is being "named" as a prostitute, but given that this street is known for daylight prostitution, the name of the file and its description is apt." That appears to me (and most of the other people I've run it by) to indicate that you believe it's not a violation of COM:IDENT or the board BLP resolution to label a group of identifiable living people as engaging in prostitution related activities based on no evidence other than the street they are standing on. I've repeatedly asked you to correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words, and you've repeatedly refused to do so (and since it would take quite little time to correct me if I was wrong, I'm assuming I interpreted your comment in more or less the way you intended it. It's beyond concerning that a sysop on a major project refuses to explain their statements and apparently believes that it's perfectly okay to label people prostitutes based on the fact that they're in a redlight district. I'll drop this line of inquiry after this for now, but certainly have this page bookmarked for the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point for deletion. There is no identifiable individual that can be related with prostitution, so there is no need of consent. It is fair the assume it with prostitution as this particular street is known in the press of Barcelona for that. --V.Riullop (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be sure I understand your position -- do you think the black marks over the people's eyes is sufficient to obscure their identities? -Pete F (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, hard to recognize any person, but after reading COM:IDENT#Identification I change my mind as the black marks are not considered effective, it is unethical, and the subject of the photo is sensitive. Please  Delete per no consent. --V.Riullop (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I'm following the consensus that this file is not allowed according to COM:IDENT#Identification Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prostitution_in_Raval.JPG&oldid=124678665"