Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buddhist monk in Myanmar (1068571).jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Buddhist monk in Myanmar (1068571).jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Niels Steeman (ObeyGravity @ Pixabay) - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Josve05a -- Josve05a (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Josve05a (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Until the proof of the parent's consent.--Jebulon (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do we even know that the parents have guardianship of a child in a Buddhist monastery in Burma/Myanmar? The senior monk of the monastery may have guardianship, as monks in Myanmar join monastic orders. INeverCry 21:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Parents or legal representative, of course. No need to nitpick--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as Jebulon. Every human being has eo ipso personel rights. If there is someone with guardianship or not. This child does not lose his rights, just because the senior monk or his parents are just busy around the corner. --Hubertl 22:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of information about parental consent didn't seem to bother you when you cast this !vote a week ago. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel: I was aware about this, but I decided for me, that this was a different situation and included a parents consent as part of the family income. I realized this situations by myself in different ways from my own travels to asia/south asia or south america. --Hubertl 08:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel, the mother was steering the boat where the girl was sitting and the mother collected the money for taking photos. So if this is not a consent, what is it then? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Cccefalon: I agree that consent was probably implicit in that situation, and since you took the image I defer to your description of the situation. But the larger point is that this issue never came up in that discussion, i.e. no one ever asked you about it to satisfy their concerns (The only way we knew that you and she were both on adjacent boats was because someone asked you about the framing of the image). Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel, the mother was steering the boat where the girl was sitting and the mother collected the money for taking photos. So if this is not a consent, what is it then? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel: I was aware about this, but I decided for me, that this was a different situation and included a parents consent as part of the family income. I realized this situations by myself in different ways from my own travels to asia/south asia or south america. --Hubertl 08:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of information about parental consent didn't seem to bother you when you cast this !vote a week ago. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose +1 --Ralf Roleček 23:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC) additional, i never support a file with License CC-0, because this license is not viral.
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose He is a minor, a child. Parents authorization must be provided Ezarateesteban 01:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest we hold off on this one since it has been nominated for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Closed the DR since it only contained a question and no motivation why this image is against Commons policy. Questions can be asked in the villege pump. Natuur12 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry no, the "village pump" is only for natural english speaking people. I never go there, as we have "le Bistro" for french speaking Commoners.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- You say tomato, I say tomahto. Same difference. My point was perfectly clear. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, now I don't understand nothing, what about tomatoes.--Jebulon (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- You say tomato, I say tomahto. Same difference. My point was perfectly clear. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry no, the "village pump" is only for natural english speaking people. I never go there, as we have "le Bistro" for french speaking Commoners.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Closed the DR since it only contained a question and no motivation why this image is against Commons policy. Questions can be asked in the villege pump. Natuur12 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support, then, if the DR has been closed. I would have wished for greater DoF, but the unsharp crown of the boy's head is offset by the detail of his dace. !Voters wanting to make the consent of depicted minors' parents a dealbreaker issue at FPC, or even a reason for deletion, would do better to make their case at the policy level rather than in debates over individual files. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel, once again. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - If it's legally and ethically OK to have this photo on Commons, I could support featuring it. My only caveat, and the reason I feel like I have to be neutral, is that I don't recommend for you to look at the full size of the photo, because then the blurriness of most of it could well bother you and might even make you dizzy. This is essentially a closeup of the young monk's face, and everything behind that (including the ears) gets fuzzier and fuzzier. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's what is boring here sometimes : the vote is no more about the picture, but "pro" or "contra" Daniel Case's opinion. I agree, it a my fault for part, but... --Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Maybe, but not in my case. This is my personal reaction to the photo, and it happens to be different in some ways from his, and similar in other ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my comment is not at the right place just under your vote, and does not comment it, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Maybe, but not in my case. This is my personal reaction to the photo, and it happens to be different in some ways from his, and similar in other ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's what is boring here sometimes : the vote is no more about the picture, but "pro" or "contra" Daniel Case's opinion. I agree, it a my fault for part, but... --Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support With Daniel --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose child. Charles (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the crop, of the two faces at the top, to be unfortunate. The eyes are perhaps just out of focus. Daniel, policy only decides yes or no for inclusion (and there's a strong tendency for inclusion provided there's no actual law against it). It doesn't decide whether that is desirable or ethical. Views on the ethics of street photography & consent vary and if photographers in general have no consensus on this, then I don't think Commons will arrive at one either. So I think it is valid for Jebulon and others to wish that "our finest" works had the best ethical standards according to their opinion of the necessary ethics. I have however, seen everything now, with an oppose above because the image is too easy to reuse. I should note (because this causes no end of confusion to some), that strictly speaking no media licence on Commons is "viral" -- our images do not infect their host. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- If !voters want to register ethical objections to the featuring of an image that would otherwise be featured, they have {{Neutral}} or (better yet) {{Abstain}} to make the point with without affecting the outcome. As for "viral" ... I think Ralf means that the CC-0 license, since it is not SA, does not require reusers to use it. It's a way of saying it's not easy enough to share, rather than too easy. And, frankly, that's a more tenable objection to the image, although one I don't think most of us (ahem) share. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, no,if an ethical objection stops it being among our finest, so an oppose is justified. And ethics are imo far more important than some effort to force free-content ideology onto others. I know Ralf means "share-alike" but the problem is using the term "viral" makes many people think our CC images infect the works that contain them, and they actually don't. They don't even infect derivative works. I've seen people write to journals claiming they need to make a whole issue of their journal open/free because it used a CC image. -- Colin (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- A license is viral, if every re-use must take the same license. But a picture with CC-0 can be re-used, whoever you want. The next use have no license and this is not viral. Once there was a basic principle here, to disseminate free licenses. CC 0 does not promote the spread of free licenses, it hinders the spread. Therefore, CC 0 is for me outside the project scope of Commons.--Ralf Roleček 08:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- The "viral" term is one rejected by the free-content community (it was coined by Microsoft in the days when it didn't understand) because it is quite misleading and unhelpful. Please avoid it and use "share-alike" or "copyleft". And no, our mission here is to provide free content that can be easily re-used. We aren't here "to disseminate free licenses" and that has never been Commons' mission. Are you going to start opposing PD works from NASA or old photographs just because someone is legally entitled to remix the work and create something non-free. Perhaps you should campaign to extend copyright for 200 years past your death just so your free licence can be perpetuated for even longer, rather than worry someone might create a non-free work in the year 2200. What an upside-down view of our mission. That's quite a disruptive reasons to oppose and one FPC should utterly reject. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- A license is viral, if every re-use must take the same license. But a picture with CC-0 can be re-used, whoever you want. The next use have no license and this is not viral. Once there was a basic principle here, to disseminate free licenses. CC 0 does not promote the spread of free licenses, it hinders the spread. Therefore, CC 0 is for me outside the project scope of Commons.--Ralf Roleček 08:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, no,if an ethical objection stops it being among our finest, so an oppose is justified. And ethics are imo far more important than some effort to force free-content ideology onto others. I know Ralf means "share-alike" but the problem is using the term "viral" makes many people think our CC images infect the works that contain them, and they actually don't. They don't even infect derivative works. I've seen people write to journals claiming they need to make a whole issue of their journal open/free because it used a CC image. -- Colin (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- If !voters want to register ethical objections to the featuring of an image that would otherwise be featured, they have {{Neutral}} or (better yet) {{Abstain}} to make the point with without affecting the outcome. As for "viral" ... I think Ralf means that the CC-0 license, since it is not SA, does not require reusers to use it. It's a way of saying it's not easy enough to share, rather than too easy. And, frankly, that's a more tenable objection to the image, although one I don't think most of us (ahem) share. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I find it a shame that some oppositions here are not about the technical or artistic merit of the picture, but other personal issues which do not have their place in a FP nomination. :( Yann (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment@Yann: C'est comme au tribunal: la première chose que regarde le juge, c'est si le requête est recevable dans la forme. Et selon plusieurs d'entre nous ici, cette image n'est pas recevable en l'état, ce qui pour nous justifie son rejet.--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - lack of proof of consent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose total lack of consent of the depicted person and their parents or parental authority --.js[democracy needed] 11:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- OpposeUntil the proof of the parent's consent or of the responsible in the bouddhist monastery. Yet there are Young monks on "Commons". -- Pierre André (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Steinsplitter (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)