Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varicela.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:Varicela.jpg

[edit]

I propose to delete the original image version (15:24, 22. Aug. 2006) in order to effectively protect the privacy of the child, whereas the later retouched version that is currently shown would remain. Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure hiding this baby's penis was necessary in the first place. I mean... it's just a baby, and the image is nearly 3 years old. Besides, the subject being a minor, it's up to the parents to make decisions about his privacy, and it seems to me that the image was posted by his father, so I don't see a problem. --Tryphon (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a child doesn't strictly belong to his parents, it has a dignity and right to privacy by itself. In this case it is even identified by name (IMHO, this indicates some carelessness on behalf of the uploader, though eventually he did it to prevent RFDs). In addition, the image is intended to show Varicela symptoms, not a baby's genitals; so there is simply no need to show this image variant.--Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that it is a case where we would need a model release, because it is a private setting; since we can obviously not get a release from the baby, we would have to ask the parents, and the fact that they uploaded the image is de facto a release. So I agree it's not essential to include the baby's genitals, but I find it overkill to try and hide it. ----Tryphon (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I've retouched the original version according to an old discussion. Tryphon you should see rules about naked pictures on wikipedia, you'll see that a lot of picture were posted with another purpose than (for example here) varicela or other subjects... So wikipedia or wikimedia must protect all his site. I didn't know the original picture were still here... Good job Turelio ! Hope original picture will be definitely removed from wikimedia.--Patricia.fidi (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the picture to it's original, non-censored, version. Wikimedia Commons is not censored, nor should it be censored, and there is no reason to censor it. The privacy of the child further has nothing to do with whether his penis is shown or not - if the picture is to be deleted due to privacy concerns, the entire image should be deleted, not only the part that shows his penis. Of course, it should not be deleted at all (see Tryphon's reasoning above). Plrk (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Plrk, reverting an image version that has been present for two years during an ongoing discussion, is quite rude. I've therefore reverted your revert, and the image should remain that way until this discussion has come to an end.--Túrelio (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I will wait until this discussion has closed before reverting it back to the original state. Plrk (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin (not me, as I opened this rfd) might do that or might not. Remember, this is not Plrk-pedia or similar, but Commons.--Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on this page is whether the image should be deleted or not, not whether it should be censored or not. As there is clearly no reason to delete it (the original nominator indeed just wants to oversight the non-censored version), this discussion will be closed as a keep. You said that I should not revert the image during an ongoing discussion, and I will not do so, but after the discussion is over, I will - and if someone disagrees, they'll re-revert, and we discuss the problem on the image page to reach a consensus. Plrk (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present situation is fine; while it's true Commons is not censored, sister projects might have stricter rules about nudity, and we shouldn't impose the uncensored version on them. And I think we should keep the original version in case other projects with different rules about nudity wish to use it (by uploading it under a different name) or want to modify it differently. --Tryphon (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, it is those that want another version that should upload another version. Also, none of the Wikimedia projects are censored, so it is kind of a moot point anyways? Plrk (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Also censoring a baby's pee-pee is kind of ridiculous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ask the baby? --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do babies in your neck of the woods try to cover themselves when daddy is taking pictures? And what will be next? Manneke Pis? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentI can't make up my mind here. This image is a good illustration of the disease symptoms, and it is unlikely to cause the child any harm. On the other hand, it is very problematic to put a picture of a child in a private situation without having his parents' consent. The best solution here, in my opinion, is to contact the uploader of the image and ask him if the parents of the child know he uploaded the image. BTW, I keep hearing the "no censorship" mantra. I beg you to stop using it, as it is totally irrelevant, and distract people's mind of the real issue here. Of course we don't censor pictures which illustrate human disease symptoms, has anyone suggested otherwise? However, we do adhere to the principle of human dignity, and uploading an image of a person in a private situation without his consent is unethical. Furthermore, exposing one's genitals is considered humiliating or indecent in many cultures. Why causing humiliation when it is not necessary? Drork (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand of the image description, the uploader is the father. The thing is, noone notified the uploader of this discussion, as is customary when nominating an image for deletion - why is that, Túrelio? Uncertain it would be in your favor? I have notified Sanbec now, in any case.
The "no censorship" policy is not a mantra, it is a protection against overly moralistic zealous who are afraid that a baby's pee-pee will make God let fire rain over the lands of the sinful. If the privacy and/or dignity of the subject of the picture is at risk, the image should be deleted - not badly photoshopped. Plrk (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why is that - that is because the rfd script does obviously notify only the last mentioned uploader, User:Patricia.fidi, who was notified - but of course you knew that already for sure.--Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had no idea. Plrk (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not question my motives, or mock my intentions. We are talking about plain simple ethical rules here. The kind of rules that any civilized person would keep, and the Commons should not become an exception. Saying "no censorship" has become a slogan in many discussions whether relevant or not. I read it here once again, even though it is totally irrelevant, so I suspect it has become a kind of "deus ex machina" to kill any discussion. If the father of this baby uploaded this image himself, then there is probably no problem with it. Nevertheless, cropping or editing an image in a reasonable way in order to make it usable for people who are offended by certain elements in it is more than legitimate. Drork (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not your motives I questioned, it was those of Túrelio. If someone has a problem with this image in its uncensored form, this someone should upload another version under another filename - or better yet, find another baby with varicela and snap a picture that does not show the child's penis. Plrk (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know of any cultures where a naked baby is considered humiliated, and I don't think we have to accommodate taboos from every culture anyway. --Tryphon (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reality-check: the image is currently used on one project page (outside of Commons) and that is cs:Plané neštovice. On that page it is and obviously always[1] was used in the current version (the one that some here like to call censored). That seems to show that those for whom our images are primarily provided, have decided to prefer the current version (otherwise they could have easily reverted to the original version, since more than 2 years).--Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A mí esto me parece absolutamente ridículo. Esto sólo cabe en mentes de un puritanismo extremo o de pedófilos reprimidos. No hay absolutamente ninguna razón para borrar esta foto y tampoco para ponerle un parche. Procedo a borrar la versión de Patricia.fidi. Sanbec ✉ 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Which machine-translates as "To me it seems absolutely ridiculous. This can only be in mind of a pedophile or extreme puritanism repressed. There is absolutely no reason to delete this picture and not to put a patch. Proceed to delete the version of Patricia.fidi.". This from the original uploader of the picture, and father of the pictured child. Plrk (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great discussion that clarifies, based on evidence not eloquence, of why the file, being a patient image, is acceptable. Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Commons is not censored. Yann (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varicela.jpg&oldid=19949053"