Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Homoneura sp.jpg

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

File:Homoneura sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 16:45:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

You should go through all other votes and check whether they fall fall within reasonable criteria. --Ahnode (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insects are not vulgar but the subject of copulation (no matter who is engaged in it) is not appropriate and unethical to be a featured picture. The subject itself is very disturbing! There should not be any associations or hints with porn (see comments above, what it causes people to think or below - what sensations it provokes) on featured picture - and this should be put in nomination regulations. Keep in mind too, that many religions (i.e. Jewish, Bible, Zoroastrian too) strictly prohibit people to observe or watch animal sex (let´s respect other people who watch wikimedia) - and I understand why, tough I am not a Jew. There should be some (mental and sensational) ethics not just quality. Notyourbroom, If commmons is not censored why no pornography is posted here? its plain obvious that there are some ethical rules on commons. Ianere, please use commonly understandable language as not all understand French, esp. if you do speak English, as I see. --Roman Zacharij (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment is not really translatable into English (it's a joke or a pun), but it basically means 'no need to make a big deal over nothing'. I mean, it's flies, who cares ? It's not like it's a woman blowing a horse ... I do apologise for the initial (rather rude) comment, I initially thought you were joking and was responding in kind. --ianaré (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I respect your opinion and that of other religious jews and christians, wikimedia is not censored. Many pictures of animals mating have already been featured such as this and this and while I am against pornography, this too has had several nominations in the past. If the reasons for your opposition are ethical, then I suggest you take this matter to the FPC talk page so that everyone can participate and come to a decision without jeopardizing my nomination. --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with Muhammad and second his suggestion to start a discussion. However it should be strongly stressed that sex, whenever animal or human sex, is not pornography. Though there is no pornography in Commons (as far as I know), there are plenty illustrations of sex, some of them very explicit. Which is ok, since that are no taboo subjects in Commons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From nomination guidelines: Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Are you sure that these copulating insects (!) is the most valuable thing one has to watch? Next thing from guidelines: "An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc." Can you define what positive emotions this image will evoke other than jokes about porn? Its clear that this image has already led some critics to think about porn (see comments). What about the thousands of people, children included (and the comments that they might have in-between) who will watch it once its on front-page? I repeat that this is not about the insects but about the subject - copulation, which on my opinion is clearly not fit to be the most valuable thing one would be forced to observe and reflect on...--Roman Zacharij (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that whenever someone wants to take away our freedoms, they always do it for the children ? --ianaré (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all pictures can be the most valuable, hence we have categories of images and different featured pictures in different categories. Now in your opinion this may not be the most valuable image, but are there other images of Homoneura sp mating? True an image speaks to people and this is a perfect example. See how much emotion it has already brought to this page! I seriously don't see anything unethical about this image. For what its worth however, the genitals are not showing :) --Muhammad (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main argument was that this image causes some people to think about porn (as witnessed by comments) easily disturbing the imagination and this argument has been ignored. Purity of the thought or consequence of imagination obviously are not a priority here. So I prefer to withdraw from this discussion. --Roman Zacharij (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the funniest saddest discussions I have ever seen here. A picture of 2 flies is not appropriate because of religion?! You really think we censor educational pictures because of all the various restrictions all the religions have?! Sorry...You must be kidding. And concerning children: I hope many children watch this picture and learn about nature and its ways and won't get kept away from education by religion! Wikimedia is not censored with a reason - and it is good like that. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not respecting Roman Zacharij's wish of ending the discussion, but this matter is way too important to let it go. "Purity of thought" always comes from the inside, not from outside. And how can we consider that the most basic and marvelous facts of life, like reproduction and copulation, can in any way corrupt the purity of thought? Sorry, but freedom of expression and free access to information is so important that I'm convinced that many of us (including myself) would fight for it if needed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Pour presque la même raison (je ne vois pas d'esprits tordus)... et parce que le français est une langue "commonly understandable" et puis ça m'énerve si les gens s'énervent parce que quelqu'un ne parle pas anglais, soit parce qu'il ne sait pas le parler, soit parce qu'il ne veut pas. Moi, au moment, je veux pas... ^^ --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Where in the Bible is it forbidden to watch animals have sex?! The old Israelites were farmers, not "monks"![reply]
  •  Support - Unpleasant sensation???? Please....what century do you guys live in? --Silfiriel (Silfiriel)
  •  Support I fully agree with Alvesgaspar, Luc Viatour and others... -- MJJR (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Though I withdrew from discussion, for those who are interested I will cite the Biblical passage from the Book of Leviticus 11:20: "All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you." (New American Standard Bible translation '95); "Every swarming, winged insect that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal is disgusting to you." (God´s word translation '95). See [1]. Then next passage Leviticus 20:25: "You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." And these norms were applied not just to ancient Israelites but they are valid for any practising Orthodox Jew today. In Christian mysticism as well all sorts of reptiles and creeping creatures are symbols of unclean and inferior forces - see for example

the Vision of Saint John of Kronstadt (there the demonic forces are represented by wild beasts and scorpions). But I stress that I am not imposing these views upon anyone but simply express my subjective opinion (which in the modern world of freedom of speech everyone has right to, a right of opposition vote too - though it does not change anything). After all any debating between a religious (conservative judeo-christian) and secularist sets of mind (and most of users here seem to be secularists) is not much sensible or productive - and I prefer not to engage in it. --Zakharii 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman, you wrote earlier "many religions (i.e. Jewish, Bible, Zoroastrian too) strictly prohibit people to observe or watch animal sex", so I asked for biblical references. Now you provide biblical quotes for insects being disgusting--that's not quite the same, is it? As for your comment about most users here being secularists--you may even be right; but judging that from comments made here is pretty tricky: I for one find it very insulting if people think that all religious people have to be offended by sex or generally have conservative views, and that being progressive is somehow secularist. That's totally not the case (even if American conservatives would like us to believe that). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Couple of years ago, I read this somewhere in the Pentateuch and remember it quite well, but I dont remember exactly which verse it was, that is why I cant cite the verse immediately (for that I need to go through all the 5 books of Moses) - but if I will, I will let you know. But the fact that insects had been viewed as abomination to Israelites (and are so to religious Jews today) suffices for an Orthodox Jew or alike (me included) to disapprove this kind of image to be featured. And it simply goes against my ethical taste (I cant even look at it) - and as noted, subjective opinions and votes should be allowed, as we are not all the same and do not perceive or think of the reality in the same way. And adherents of secularist religion (after all secularism is also set of beliefs - as nothing can be really proven - see en:Gödel's incompleteness theorems) do not own the world. Ibn Battuta: OK, let's say - between conservative Orthodox Christian and secularist sets of minds. --Zakharii 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment – I agree we are not the same (that would be quite boring by the way), but also want to believe that we all share some fundamental values and conventions which are absolutely necessary to keep a forum like this running. I’m especially referring to freedom of expression, intellectual honesty and a neutral (or scientific, if you like) view of the world. Otherwise our judgment will be conditioned by factors that have nothing to do with the aesthetical or encyclopedic value of the images under evaluation. Even worse, those images might be subjected to all kinds of a priori obstructions, depending on the infinitely varying believes of the reviewers. No, I don’t think that all those believes should be here considered as respectable because that would easily jeopardize the objectives of the forum. For example, arguing that only the clean type (non-crawling?) of animals should be allowed as valid FP candidates would be a gross aggression to intellectual honesty and scientific neutrality. As you say, purity of the thought or consequence of imagination obviously are not a priority here. Of course not, and I'm quite happy with it! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Personally I find the subject boring - no wow factor at all: this is a support vote for the freedom to educate without fear or favour. Dhatfield (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Alvesgaspar, the truth cant be double though - two times two equals 4 not 54 or 78 or 2687 or something. The ultimate ethical and moral principles likewise cant be relative or neutral. The problem is that our perception and cognition are limited. The existence of the moral principles implies moral responsibility. And moral, or call it ethical judgment is characteristic only of humans and not of animals - a crocodile that eats a human does not feel guilty, same with tiger devouring antelope - he does not feel sorry. Only humans can distinguish between what is morally good and what is evil. And we should distinguish here as well - we cant just stay neutral, otherwise we will not be humans. All kinds of human moral qualities, for centuries respected in different cultures - all virtues and all vices should be taken into consideration, not just honesty but also forgotten en:chastity for example. You see even yourself that the subject of moral is very sensitive to everyone, that is because it is the only true human one. Visual perception of colours and dimensions is also common to animals but moral-ethical (and aestetical - which flows from the same moral state of human spirit) judgement is not. And of course I speak about FP nominations - as it is the front page and ethical and aestetical requirements should be particularly high as essentially human in the first row. --Zakharii 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Again we run into that nebulous concept of 'Truth'. Who says that your truth is the one that equals 4? Why are your morals, out of the entire population's, 'right'? What reason can you give for your set of morals and truths being any truer than those of anyone else here? And as for aesthetics; well, insect mating pictures have been featured on the the front page in the past, and if anyone was offended, then they didn't feel strongly enough to complain. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment it is interesting that you say that judging moral "is characteristic only of humans and not of animals" - I always hear from religious people that God is the only one defining the moral standards (through the bible). Which imho can't be true as the moral standards of religious people also often changed in the last centuries, which is proof that those standards can't come from a God but the "Zeitgeist". Humans do kill animals and even humans - some feel sorry for it some don't, so there is no ultimate truth concerning moral, the are no "ultimate ethical and moral principles". But to be honest, I don't know what this has to do with this FPC here. All I can say is that we can never follow religious restrictions here...it would destroy a project like wikipedia. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment - Just as a side note about math and religion. Godel's theorem does not state that nothing can't really be proven. That is an abusive conclusion and I suspect Godel is now feeling uncomfortable in his grave. Godel's first theorem says that, in a non-trivial formal (logic) system, there are statements which can't be proven to be true or false. That applies to mathematics (to the set of integers, for example), not to religion, ethics or even Physics. Why is it so frequent (for religion and also some phylosophical currents) to invoke mathematical principles in order to be taken seriously? The fact is we cannot have both: revealed truth and intellectual consistency -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment WOW!!!! What if they are just playing around! Piggybackriding does not mean sex!!! If it did, jeez! did I miss some fun!!! LOL!!! Second, the bible quote says "4 legs" and these flies have 6!!!! So they are safe to watch!!! But on a serious note, no amount or moral, virtue or religion makes the natural, biological act of reproduction dissappear, or any other trait that we share with the animal kingdom... Alvesgaspar, I am in this one with you, so I´ll save my opinions, you state everything clearly... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Homoneura_sp.jpg&oldid=20276405"