Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Public drunkness.jpg

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

File:Public drunkness.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2012 at 17:52:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment Dear Tomer, oppose on the editorial/educational value and photographic merits, not because a logo of a company appears in an unfavorable situation to them, who are after all, one of the root causes of alcoholism. Must they only appear with young, beautiful, smiling people? Well, this is the other side of the coin... I have no problem with an oppose under the rules of the game here... but it is not fair to be opposed on grounds different than the ones stated. This photograph meets the technical and educational criteria stated in this forum. Controversial? Perhaps, but controversy is not a criteria for dismissal. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that quality, composition, etc. are not everything. I didn't find that the guidelines require from the reviewrs to rely only on photographic merits and EV, and if they do - that's a mistake. I think neutrality should be kept not only on Wikipedia, but also here, and I should be able to realize this opinion here at FPC. I don't think the image keeps it neutral. I would also vote "oppose" on a Corona advertisement. Tomer T (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Reality is rarely neutral, reassuring or even comfortable. Excellent image. Chapeau! Kleuske (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment FYI: I have nominated this for deletion discussion for the reasons Tomer T gives and also per COM:PEOPLE. Colin (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This image is of very good quality. It is worthy of a great reporter. There are several problems. The person is identifiable, and this fact alone will cause problems, not only in relation to the law but also ethics. If you look closely you can see that the subject is very emaciated, this is not consistent with chronic alcoholism but rather a problem with hard drugs. Has intellectually the right to associate, namely, a beer company in this picture? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I suggest blocking Tomascastelazo for this disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that is fair (and this isn't Wikipedia btw). This picture is in-scope but has problems. No stock agency would touch it for example. Such a picture may run in a newspaper/magazine but that's up to that organisations legal/ethics and editorial department. We have a guideline on pictures of identifiable people. We may have guidelines on possible defamation of companies but I haven't found one. Colin (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could Tomer T, Archaeodontosaurus and anyone else with a view regarding this picture's moral/ethical/legal issues please comment on the deletion dicussion page, which is the appropriate place and may attract views from those expert in such matters who may not hang around the FPC page. Colin (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is a good picture, but a dangerous one. The obvious visual link between the beer brand and the man is hazardous, risky and dubious IMO. Per Archaeo, no evidence that the picture shows a "public drunkness". A journalist told me that he thinks it could be a "professional fault or abuse". As a former french "DEA" officer, I tend to agree with Archaeo: this man looks like sick because of hard drugs, not because of alcohol. As a law enforcement professional, I think it is not very far from defamation or similar (according to the french law). I don't understand the request of blocking Tomascatelazo in "Commons", as he did nothing against the rules of "Commons".--Jebulon (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A good piece of photojournalism; but difficult to support due to the brand name behind. I don’t think the face of the person is much visible. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Sorry Jkadavoor, to me it is not a good piece of photojournalism. In the contrary, it is a dangerous "suggestion" for the viewers. The title is/could be an abuse. What says the picture finally ? It says that the man is as he is because he drunk too much Corona beer. That is/could be false. There is no evidence of anything like this in real. --Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't be that much serious. I like and enjoy the humor and irony here. And I don't think that person drunk 'Corona beer' but may be intoxicated with any drug. (That is just an advertisement; not a beer shop behind.) Everybody can easily understand that this is a composite composition of two subjects to make a single theme in a humorous way. Just my thoughts. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Public_drunkness.jpg&oldid=76970364"