Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2008 -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
• Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

Flower spider with moth

Original - A flower spider, Diaea evanida with it's prey on a jonquil flower.

Alt 1 - you can see the scales of the moth on the spiders head pretty well in this one

Reason

Technically high quality and plenty of EV with the spider clearly shown along with it's prey.

Articles this image appears in

Crab spider and Diaea

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Support Poor exposure and DOF, slight skew to green with regards to WB Capital photographer (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Lol - I can't help thinking that your monitor might be at fault :P --Fir0002 08:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at the histograms, I'd say that if it is skewed, it's skewed towards red! --Janke | Talk 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks pretty natural in terms of WB to me. You can't look at a histogram of a scene like this to determine the white balance anyway, though, as there is nothing obviously neutral in the image to get a reading off. It only works well if the entire frame is lit with the same light AND there is a natural balance of colours in the scene to begin with. Capital Photographer's inability to see issues with colour balance and subtle detail has been demonstrated before. Not to single him out, but it does seem to be a recurring thing and I suspect his monitor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that I said if... ;-) Seriously, the whitest whites lean towards red, not green. I agree it looks natural, so don't change anything. --Janke | Talk 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Note that this is nature, and the moth, underside of jonquil and the spider abdomen were all creamy whites, not white white. So a lean towards reds in the "whitest whites" is to be expected. And yeah I obviously agree that the WB is natural :) --Fir0002 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Have now checked it using 5 displays, 3LCD and 2 CRT, slight green skew in the wings. I should add that one of the most important things when judging colour integrity is your environment, the room and your computer desktop. If you have strong colours around you, it can desensitise you to those colours when viewing an image. Hence, many photographers and graphic artists have neutral grey desktops and subdued office colour schemes... as I do. Just saying, there is more to colour bias than the calibration of a display. I should also point out my main display is SWOT certified and calibrated monthly, so I feel it is as accurate on a technical level as possible. Given the colour fault seems to be visible only on certain high end devices, I will change my vote to support. It is a fine image in any case. I would like to see more images from fir like his photo that is today's feature image of a bird in flight. Capital photographer (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Hmm that's interesting what you say about graphic artists and subdued environments, because I'd have thought creating an image which looks good in a typical environment would be of more value then one which only looks correct in a grey environment? Because it's not likely that the target audience will be viewing the product in such a controlled environment... Anyway glad you like the flycatcher shot, you might also like this --Fir0002 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Completely honestly though, it may be Capital Photographer's eyes at fault rather than his many calibrated monitors. Again, I'm not trying to publicly crucify him, just raising the issue. One example was the Trevi Fountain image, where he could not see the blue tinge in his edit, even when it was pointed out to him. In this case, it wasn't a matter of which monitor was more accurately calibrated - using an eye dropper on the plaque proved that there was a blue tinge, because there was more B luminance than R and G. It could be argued that a well calibrated monitor muted the blues, but they should still have been visible, I think. Anyway, just food for thought really. Colour accuracy is such a complex thing and I'm sure we pixel peep far more than we need to at times. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support original EV Muhammad(talk) 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Either. The DOF is great enough to allow for significant detail. NauticaShades 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original. The original makes it much easier to tell what is going on.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Orogina Cacophony (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support original. Very good macro, could do with more DOF but so could just about every macro shot in existance. You've done well to keep everything important in the plane of focus though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Flower spider with moth02.jpg --Mww113 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

US Supreme Court Building

Original - The United States Supreme Court Building at dusk.

Not for voting - Alternate

Reason

Have at it.

Articles this image appears in

United States

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator --Noclip (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opose. It does not illustrate the subject in a particularly compelling way, doesn't make me want to know more. It's too dark, and doesn't stand out as being Wikipedia's best work. An other image from the article it's in would be better suited to be featured.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User has <10 edits, almost all of which are on FPC all within 1 hr timespan --Fir0002 09:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Huh, what's up with that 'reason' for nominating? Can we get a real reason here that actually makes sense? --jjron (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I dislike the frame ratio and the sky is quite dark. It also fails to properly illustrate the subject, cutting off the wings on either side. Capital photographer (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose aspect ratio - feels too cropped left and right. Also it seems like there is a lamp out behind the pillars on camera left. Should be retaken with that working. Mfield (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The lamp comment really irritates me. I think just about any other reason (up to and including something like "it sucks") would have been better than blaming the photographer for illustrating reality. To ask that a photograph look like a movie set flies in the face of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Noclip (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It's an easily retakeable shot, as a photographer I would go back the following week and reshoot it as it would annoy me to have an image with a lamp missing as much as it probably offends the maintenance staff of the SCOTUS. The building probably doesn't have a lamp missing very often, and as such the image is atypical of the building at night and thus less enc. Mfield (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there is a lamp, there is a basement window bottom lit up left, and a small stack of scaffolding partly hidden behind the pillar. Difficult to catch an institutional building with absolutely no clutter. ProfDEH (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I am talking the facade behind the columns. The right side is illuminated by a large floodlight but the left side is not. I am fairly certain its not generally that way Mfield (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The crop annoys me. It's a good photo, but I believe more of the building should be shown. ¢rassic! (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think ¢rassic makes an excellent point. This is made even more visible by the comparison of the other picture. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Apollo 4 Saturn V rocket

Original - The first Saturn V, AS-501, before the launch of Apollo 4. Early morning view on November 9, 1967 of Pad A, Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, showing the Apollo 4 Saturn V (Spacecraft 017/Saturn 501) prior to launch later that day. This was the first launch of the Saturn V.

Reason

This image is very eye catching and contains a beautiful background.

Articles this image appears in

1. Saturn V,
2. Spaceflight,
3. Apollo 4,
4. Arthur Rudolph,
5. Megaproject

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --The Emperor561 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain until the spots and scratches in the sky are fixed. (Also: Blown highlights... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Trivial to re-shoot. ;) At first I thought it was already featured, but after a quick hunt, I realised it was this one that was featured. I also note that it is no longer used in the article, which is a bit unfortunate because there are no other images of the launch either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Already have essentially the same FP, plus the moon is so fake in this picture. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this image was put up as a cadidate awhile ago and rejected for having the moon artifilcially put in. victorrocha (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Fake moon and the fact that we already have a FP that is almost the same as this. --Mifter (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Not only is there a fake moon in the shot, but the fake moon is the worst fake I have every seen. Capital photographer (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The background has many problems with spots and scratches, which greatly reduces the eye-candy when viewing at fullsize. (Note: this changes in a strong oppose if victorrocha's comment turns out to be true) Fransw (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

edit: Changed to strong oppose after reading the picture's description. The moon was indeed added later. Fransw (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Fake moon. The image looks like something off of the back of a 1990s Lego box. (I'd also add that fake moons tend to demonstrate people's general ignorance. They think the moon is a pretty thing, but they never actually look up.) TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Fake moon ruins the enc. (do i recall reading that this moon position is completely incorrect for the time of shot which is inexcusable for NASA of all people.) Mfield (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes you wonder what else they faked on this mission ;) Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.

Is NOT of a high technical standard. Not sure about being an exception, it's potentially historical/unique but impossibility of technically superior image is unclear.

Meets minimum requirements for resolution, but not great. Again not sure about exception.

Wikipedia's best work? IMO not.

While somewhat pretty, doesn't add much to the articles it appears in.

Is not accurate

Based on the article, and the note (which describes potential errors in the description about direction, timing, and addition of a full moon which should have been a quarter moon). See http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php and enter November 9th, 1967 at Merritt Island, Florida. The moon was added in the incorrect phase, and either it was in the incorrect direction relative to the rocket or the image was altered and it was taken at sunset not sunrise. The later would then require that "USA", "United States", and the American Flags would have been flipped. Based on other photos it appears to be in the original orientation, but the moon is added.

The caption is cluttered and possibly inaccurate.

Digital Manipulation is questionable. The problems seem to have come from it's source in NASA and not editing by wikipedians, so does this apply? More over it requires much manipulation to overcome issues of technical quality.Dwayne Reed (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I call WP:Snowball and I claim my five pounds. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Willie Wagtail

Original - An adult Willie Wagtail, taken in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens

Reason

High quality image of a Willie Wagtail. Seems to fit all the criteria IMO

Articles this image appears in

Willie Wagtail

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent technically. Definitely adds to an otherwise uninteresting article.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • — seems to have joined to support this picture and badmouth a well written article (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If the article is that uninteresting why would I want the picture to be seen on the front page, which would then link it to a second rate article? You've given me one good reason not to support the image. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• the picture looks great, and meets the criteria to be a featured picture. That has nothing to do with the quality of the article it appears on. It's nominated to be a featured picture, not featured article. I don't think that the article is a bad one, it's just that I find the subject of the article uninteresting/boring. Articles don't have to be written in an exciting way. Most of the articles that go with featured pictures are pretty boring. I'd bet that most of the folks commenting on these featured picture candidates don't care much about the articles, but like pictures. Besides It's only my opinion. And the point is that the picture adds value to the article, so I support it being featured. If you believe it should not be featured because of the quality of the associated article, then you're welcome to !vote oppose. In that case who ever makes the decision to promote or not is sure to see a reason for opposing that's not supported.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This is a very high quality image, and adds significantly to the article and to Wikipedia.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Perhaps a bit too bright and plumage detail is quite soft, but overall nice DOF and clarity Capital photographer (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support A very nice image, but I wish that the background branches were in lesser focus. (The Branch the bird is on is fine. The branches seem to be in better focus than other FP's I've seen, like this or this. Also, if someone could slightly blur the branches like this, I'd fully support. Spencer^T♦C 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support It's a really nice picture, but it looks a little funny with half of the branch in focus and the other half blurry.116135 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No offense but welcome to DOF --Fir0002 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support in spite of the supporter above badmouthing the article as if the picture shouldn't see light of day because of an inferior article--the article's fine. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - good image of a useful subject. Well taken and composed. His tail has suffered the ravages of time though - Peripitus (Talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support good picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Willy wag tail.jpg MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The moment of birth

Original - A team of obstetricians perform a caesarean section in a modern hospital. The image shows the very first moment the mother glimpses her new-born child.

Edit 2 by Diliff. Same idea as Victorrocha but kept original resolution and slightly cleaner noise reduction (compare background, eg clock)

Diff version.

Reason

As another user commented, the WOW factor is incredible (this definitely makes you want to read accompanying article). The focal point of the picture is really well highlighted. I find the edit cleans the picture up to the degree that it meets the FP requirements. Was originally posted to WP:PPR and seconded here Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Cesarian

Articles this image appears in

Caesarean_section

Creator

Salimfadhley

• Support as nominator --smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Cesarian. Imperfect, but awesome image. Fletcher (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment where's the model permission? Durova^Charge! 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not see why one is required, especially since no one is this photo is identifiable, as the woman is lying down and the doctors are covered. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's call this a matter of perspective. I am a woman. If anyone ever shows up in a delivery room where I am giving birth and attempts to use "she's lying down" as a pretext to take photographs without my permission, I will leap from the gurney, tackle the SOB, and eat the camera. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The presence of this picture here implies nobody "tackled the SOB" and ate the camera. Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Correct, it would be very hard to sneak into that particular surgery and start taking snapshots of strangers. All images were taken with the full knowledge and consent of all present (except for the baby). --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • A bit harder to do during a c-section than a regular birth: general anesthesia. How do we know she was any more willing to permit photography of the delivery than she would have been of the conception? Durova^Charge! 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, no one in the photo is identifiable, with the doctors masked, the new mother facing away, and, while the baby is uncovered, all newborns pretty much look alike. The lack of clearly identifiable individuals would seem to cut against the argument their personality or privacy rights are being infringed. Nevertheless, I can't pretend to offer a legal opinion; perhaps someone else knows more. Fletcher (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I do not know British law. If it is anything like the U.S., a standard hospital consent form would grant permission for limited photography purposes (patient care, scientific research and medical training). Anything beyond that use would require additional specific consent, and presence in Wikipedia (let alone the main page) goes far beyond those limited purposes. That standard applies to all medical procedures, not just childbirth. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
            • This photo was taken in a private hospital, therefore the only consent required was that of the surgeons and the mother. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Do we know British law applies rather than Florida law? Wikipedia is not in the London hospital, taking the pictures. We are hosting the image from Florida. And I doubt Florida law covers people in London hospitals. Fletcher (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
                • The image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, where site policy is to respect the law of both the home country and the United States. Another editor notes below that this photograph may be in violation of the European convention on human rights. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• oppose I agree with Durovas questioning of the image having appropriate approvals, the medical team would obviously not have given permission for their image to used commercially, I also note that in Australia a doctor can be deregistered for such actions, that while I'm not sure of the UK position commonalities between UK and Aust are in the majority. Gnangarra 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean that a doctor can be deregistered for such actions...? What actions exactly? Allowing a photographer to take a photo of them during a procedure? I have no idea whether you're right or not, but it sounds a bit over the top. I'm sure I've seen photos taken before. How many families have photos, or even video, of a childbirth? Is that something for a doctor to be deregistered for? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Allowing a photo to be taken by a person for a private record isnt an issue, allowing an image to be taken for commercial purposes violates ethical standards and such violations can see the doctor de-registered. Gnangarra 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah sorry, I didn't see that you meant commercial photography. OK, but what about documentaries filmed in a hospital.. you sometimes see footage of an actual operation, and a documentary is commercial. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Such things would have obtained the necessary approvals as seen in the credits, my oppose is based on the image licensing and whether the necessary approval has been granted from the medical team for unrestricted commercial use. Gnangarra 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Surely the privacy/personality issue has come up before? Hopefully I didn't miss something, but I didn't see anything pertinent in Image Use Policy or featured picture criteria. Does the apparent lack of policy indicate it's only an issue between photographer and subject? Or does Wikipedia experience "second hand" liability if a freely licensed photograph is found to infringe the rights of the subject? Hmmm. Fletcher (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are going on this, Photography_and_the_law (see UK section), then I quote "in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes." Unless someone presents something more definitive, I think it is jumping the gun to vote oppose (based on the permission doubts), similiar to our friend Gnan. In addition, I do not believe that any permission is required when no one is identifiable, but I will look up definitive info if I can. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I did see under the General Disclaimer that Wikipedia explicitly disavows responsibility for photographs that infringe on personality rights. Thus, it should be a matter between the photographer and subject. I presume if a lawsuit developed Wikipedia could conceivably have to remove the offending photo, but I don't see why we would have to preemptively suppress photos we have explicitly denied responsibility for. Furthermore, as the subjects are not identifiable, it's rather unlikely there will be any issue with it down the road.Fletcher (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Allow me to be explicit then. Although I don't perceive any deliberate bias and all of the participants to this discussion are probably decent people, there is also an undercurrent which is--to say the least--disturbing. Some women allow their childbirths to be photographed and distributed; others, most vehemently, do not. Some women allow their copulations to be photographed and distributed; others, most vehemently, do not. We have no idea which view this woman holds. I doubt very much we would even consider a photograph of comparable quality of two human beings copulating with equivalent proportions of their bodies, faces, and the surrounding room visible unless their permission had been explicitly granted, because this is sufficient detail for the people who already know the individuals well to recognize them. And if this subject happens to be of the opinion that childbirth is as private as lovemaking, then this discussion is downright dehumanizing. It reduces one of the most important moments in her life to the level of the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet: look at the female mammal generating offspring, as expressed by a group of males who can never themselves be humiliated in this particular manner. The nearest parallel I can think of would be a photograph of a vasectomy with the patient's face partially visible, the medical team's faces partially visible, and the operating room in such good depth of focus that it's easily recognizable to anyone who knows the department and the hospital. Camera metadata are a strong hint to the rest. If a man who is having a vasectomy consents to such a photograph I will support it, and if this woman likes the idea of her childbirth running on Wikipedia's main page I will support it. But until and unless she grants that permission my opinion here has to be very strong oppose. Call that WP:IAR if necessary: this is just plain wrong. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see the relation between childbirth and porn. I do not know what undercurrent you see, but I nominated this picture because I thought it was an amazing picture highlighting the first moment of life, not to mention its encyclopedic nature. The Free Arts license attached to it is concerned with respect. The nomination is in a great respect to childbirth and to the author of the photograph and a nod to its rarity. This is the 21st century and many women choose C-sections as a preference, and I think this photograph is a tremendous illustration of that. It does not demean the moment in that woman's life whatsoever (who I remind is unidentifiable). Please do not take offense to that. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Whether you see it is irrelevant; ask whether she sees it. Or upload a photograph of yourself giving birth. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know about the copyright laws but I see that this image successfully passed as an FP without any model permission. Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• British law and the Wikipedia misquote above from Wikipedia. The full sentence says,

"Photography without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights, however in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes. In addition persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment. In general, schools disallow photography and video recording of people due to privacy concerns. "

• It's always interesting to me what people choose to omit to prove their points. Now, Wikipedia isn't the authority on British photography law, but since if it were taken "without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights."
• You omitted that it might be a violation of her human rights. But, hell, she's a woman, what's another woman's human rights violated?
• I think this photograph should come with a permission of the models. With the models' permissions, its a wonderful image, without it's just more exploitation. But again, what's a human rights violation when a Wikipedia FP is at stake? Please, just ask the photographer to get the model's permission. It's simple. Don't guess, just get the permission. --Blechnic (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, be civil. You're the second person in this review to assume sexism. Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • There was no release form, this is just a family snapshot of which we are particularly proud - if you are concerned then rather than imagine what my wife must be thinking then one of you can meet her, verify that she is the same person and then ask her yourself. Contact me directly if you are interested. Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a statistically sound assumption when it comes to human rights violations and women. I'm concerned about privacy issues, identification issues, release issues. So is Durova. Her concerns are being dismissed. These issues were dismissed with a misquote from a Wikipedia article. This raises questions to me, and statistically, in the world, brick or web, the human rights of women are not of great concern. That is a far greater incivility than mentioning it or suspecting it can ever be. -Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistically sound or not, you are assuming bad faith if you say someone is motivated out of sexism and disregard for women. Legal matters can get very complex; the mere fact that someone makes an interpretation that might be adverse to a woman hardly implies it is done out of sexism. Quite possibly it is the British interpretation of privacy that will be practically relevant, even if there is some potential appeal to the EU, which could explain why he quoted it that way. In addition, why do you interpret disagreement with Durova as dismissal of her concerns? This isn't some old boys' club; it's a wiki. No one gets to dismiss her, but we can disagree, if we want. Fletcher (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify for my own part: I assume the best of intentions and basic decency on the part of all parties. Certain scenes are just much easier or harder to relate to from a given perspective. If someone were to nominate a photograph of a circumcision being performed on an adult, my predominant reaction would be a clinical curiosity about what the operation looks like supplemented with an interest in public health issues as the procedure relates to HIV transmission. Most men would react very differently. It becomes a little harder to maintain good faith after having set forth the substance and reasoning of my misgivings in an articulate and (I hope) nonconfrontational manner, but I am maintaining it: I trust that the obstacle is an alien perspective, very hard to imagine effectively when one's anatomy is fundamentally different, and that everyone in this discussion is a well-meaning person. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Fletcher for pointing out that the sexism claims are misdirected. If I did misquote, its not a failure on my part to recognize women's rights, I was taking the relevant part about UK, not some broad claim about the EU that has no source. The source for that Wiki page is this about Photographer's rights, unfortunately, it does not cover this particular situation and I haven't been able to find anything else on the matter (yet). I would also like to reiterate that I do not think it matters if I am male or female, I look at this picture from an objective third party perspective and I think it is an amazing photograph. Also Durova, with all due respect, you keep mentioning anatomy, but isn't that the case with medical related pictures? If there was a photograph nominated of a vasectomy or circumcision then I would judge that photograph exactly how you expressed, with a clinical perspective coupled with an encyclopedic view, as I am doing here. I personally believe that most people seeing this picture for the first time will be thoroughly surprised on seeing a picture like this one. I can understand if you feel differently however and do not mean to disregard your opinion. My point is that it seems to me that none of us know if a model release is required in this case. A reliable source would certainly end this discussion, although I am surprised this matter has never arisen before^{citation needed}. In the meantime, I will ask Salimfadhley to get a model release, despite the fact that none of us are sure on the law. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I didn't realize you already did. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it over carefully and decided that even if model release isn't legally required, context and common sense demand it. Wikimedia projects often handle images more conservatively than the bare minimum statutory requirement: consider Wikipedia's fair use parameters and Commons's decision to not host material based upon inapplicable local law even though United States copyright is the only restriction it is required to observe. The shared element is courtesy--we endeavor to refrain from exploitation. This woman was unconscious when the photograph was taken. We have no assurance that she permitted it or that she even knows it exists, yet we are seriously contemplating displaying it on Wikipedia's main page where it will be seen by approximately seven million people. This is why I invoked WP:IAR: it may be that no one anticipated such a discussion, and I will be very grateful if she does consent, but we must not presume. A consent to publish the actual birth of one's child is the most personal decision in the world. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: What makes you think that the mother was unconscious when the photograph was taken? In my experience general anaesthesia during caesarean section is rare and there is no evidence in the photograph that it was used in this case. Also, I count six adults present in the image, none of whom could fairly be described as the subject. 66.240.20.113 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My wife was fully conscious throughout the entire procedure - that is why there is a surgical screen, to prevent the mother from seeing and becoming disturbed by the procedure. At the end of the procedure (and after baby is checked by the midwife), baby is given to the mother to hold for the first time. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A very standard procedure; I see no reason to suspect that the Mother, obstetricians or other medial staff were unaware that the photograph was being taken. Support 66.240.20.113 (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

<=Wikipedia's image policies are structured to promote free content, which doesn't seem to be the issue here. Wikipedia is not censored, so we do not suppress images as a courtesy to people who don't want them shown. I haven't seen any policy against exploitation, and I'm not even sure what that term is supposed to mean. I do think we should figure out if the photographer infringed the subject's rights. If he did, we should not compound the damages done even if Wikipedia is not liable (as we are not, per the General Disclaimer). If he didn't -- either she consented or her consent was not required -- I don't see the harm in featuring the image. It's a wonderful image, and the benefit to Wikipedia's readers will far exceed any harm done to the subject. Indeed I don't really understand what harm is done to the subject: she is not identifiable, nor is the baby, in my opinion, nor are the doctors, so the image does not expose anything about her particular life, because nothing in particular is known about her. Her head faces away, with her body covered in blankets. The newborn looks like any newborn; it could be any of us, as its mother could be any of our mothers. In that way the image has artistic value complementing its encyclopedic value. I continue to support, if the image is legal. Fletcher (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the person who took this photo. The "model" is my wife and the baby is my baby. This is a photo from my family album taken and uploaded with consent of all present (except the baby who could not have any say in the matter. He's now 2 years old. I asked him if he minds Wikipedia using this image and he ran off to do something more interesting. This image has been used all over the world - I think it's been on the cover of at least one obstetrics journal (in Mexico) and it's been on Flickr for over 2 years now. Nobody objects to it being on Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec - now mostly redundant)Strong Support if the model's permission can be obtained per a striking and moving image. If the model can't be found then still I think Support per Fletcher (assuming the image is legal - agree with Fletcher we should check). As the woman and doctors are unrecognisable I don't see any great need to remove the image to protect their privacy. Since the question has been raised, I am a man, but I don't think my support is due to my "anatomy [being] fundamentally different": I can't speak for most men, but I'd be acting exactly the same (and exactly the same as Durova describes herself acting) if the picture were of a circumcision or vasectomy. If the image were good and the subject anonymous, as I believe they are here, I'd be supporting just the same. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support despite being a bit grainy in the shadows. Had we but asked the uploader first, all those electrons used in the discussion above could have been left unbothered... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Electrons like to be excited. ;-) In fact I made 10^45 electrons happy by unnecessarily replying to you! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support although could be less grainy in some areas. If there is more reason than conjecture that this might violate privacy (it has bee freely released) then you should attempt to have this image deleted. But I don't really see that there is beyond guessing. gren グレン 11:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral the original photo is released under a "CC Non-commerical by attribution" license on Flickr - that means if somebody feels the photo would be better with the mother's face blurred out then they are free to do so as attribution is preseved. I honestly do not mind as long as the CC rules are followed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just realized - this is my baby daughter (not my son). They all look the same when they were newborns. The original photo is here: http://flickr.com/photos/salimfadhley/2141742390/in/set-72157603567517647/ --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please ask your wife to grant her permission in writing. That's the only barrier here, but it's quite a serious one. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit is gained by a written release when all we have is his word that the person giving his release is actually his wife, as opposed to him giving his word that this wife consents. Mangostar (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound redundant, but based on the points raised by Fletcher and Olaf, and from the author's comments, I do not think it is a "barrier" to being a FP, although I don't see how a release would hurt. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Are you aware that the license you released the image on at Wikipedia is not non-commercial? The fine print of the Free Art License states "it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions than those required by the respect of the other compatibility criteria;". This conflicts with the license you released it with on Flickr... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The more permissive license wins. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's right - just take your pick licence-wise. Remember, I did the releasing so that means I'm OK with both licenses. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe a model permission is necessary in this case. Worst to the worst, Wikipedia would get a cease and desist letter, the photograph would be taken down, and that would be that. NauticaShades 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• SupportStrong Oppose But I would like a model release, also. The graininess can't be helped with the lighting situation, so this doesn't matter. It's a very generic childbirth, too, because of the limited view of the mother, and the timing. Yes, Salim, son/daughter, the whole human race looks pretty much the same at the moment of birth. It would be a good picture to see on the main page. --Blechnic (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not going to be a model-release. Like I said, this is a family snapshot. The "model" is not a model but my wife. The baby is not a model either - she is my baby. She can dribble, puke and cry really well. She's learning to crawl but she's not going to be signing any legal documents for another 2 years at least. As I said before, these images have been CC licensed on Flickr for at least 6 months - that alone makes it fair-game for Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the issue that everyone has been crowing about is the fact that your wife, however unidentifiable she is, might not approve of the image being released or worse, file a lawsuit down the track. She might be your wife but she is still entitled to own opinion, obviously. I don't see how she could possibly implicate Wikipedia though, as you have released the image under a specific license, and Wikipedia will respect the license. I guess the point remains that you might not, in theory, have the right to release an image of another person in a very intimate time and location, and I think that Durova's concern is that while permission might not be required, it would be discourteous to not attempt to get it. I see that point and respect it, but on the other hand she is quite unidentifiable, and I'm inclined to think that if she is not happy with the image being published, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. For the time being, lets assume good faith and that the benefit of a good quality, encyclopaedic image outweighs the potential distress/embarassment/shame/etc on the part of those in the image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be snappy to me, Salimfadhley. I supported the image, but stated I would like a model release. Guess what? You don't get to sign your wife's model release. You don't own her release rights. Changed to strong oppose--this attitude and answer about the model release does not bode well for the situation of using this image. The model is a model, and she's a human being first, and apparently an adult, with her own legal rights, that you don't get to, in the laws of many lands, sign away with only your say-so. --Blechnic (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that such a release is required. His attitude is irrelevant, as we are judging the picture, not the photographer. Besides, if he seemed "snappy" it may be in reaction to the implication that he is untrustworthy, which I think is uncalled for. Fletcher (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Diliff. Again, I note the general disclaimer absolves Wikipedia of responsibility in the hypothetical event Salim is doing something improper. That covers us legally. Ethically speaking, I think to assume good faith is to defer to Salim's good judgment about his wife's expectations. Fletcher (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide evidence he owns the wife and her legal rights, he's the one giving her permission, seems photographer thinks it needs permission he gives. Heck, snappy for assuming bad faith? I supported the image, and then said I would like a model release, not I demanded one, and then I praised the picture, for that I get snapped at? Forget it. This picture will be problems. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Salim was trying to be snappy. Perhaps he misunderstood the model permission requirement and was explaining that his wifeis not a model:-) Muhammad(talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please understand the European Convention on Human Rights. In the third millenium, a wife speaks for herself. Until and unless she agrees, we must oppose on principle, and in the strongest terms. Durova^Charge! 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But does the European Convention of Human Rights apply to a situation in which the person concerned is unidentifiable? You cite law, but your argument is about moral principles (and I agree with your argument, except to say I think it would be nice but not absolutely necessary). It doesn't sound like the author is going to be swayed into providing 'proof of authorisation' by opposition out of principle. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you said "Until and unless she agrees, we must oppose". Salim has said above that his wife has given permission. I really don't see why we should oppose on principle unless we have any reason to doubt Salim's truthfulness about his wife having consented (which we don't). After all, he's not saying "I hereby give my wife's permission" as Durova and Blechnic seem to be implying - he's just telling us that she has consented herself. What's wrong with that? And what will convince you that she has consented, if Salim's word is for some reason not enough? Olaf Davis | Talk 14:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In Durova's defense, I don't think Salim ever did actually say his wife gave permission, he just said no written permission would be forthcoming. It was only somewhat implied that his wife approved - certainly it wasn't explicitly stated that his wife gave permission. Again though, I don't think it is absolutely necessary anyway, if she isn't identifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement of Salim's I was referring to is "This is a photo from my family album taken and uploaded with consent of all present". Assuming that "uploaded" means "uploaded to Wikipedia" that seems fairly explicit to me - do you disagree with my interpretation? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're absolutely right. I thought I had read everything thoroughly (I even searched for every instance of Salim's name to confirm that I had), but somehow I missed that statement. Fair enough, I think thats about as much proof as you can really expect. As has been mentioned, a written document is no more proof unless we can confirm his wife's signature anyway, and that is just getting a bit ridiculous over someone who is unidentifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The hostility from Durova and Blechnic is puzzling. "Provide evidence he owns the wife and her legal rights". I never suggested anything of the kind, and I don't see any evidence that portraying the issue as some kind of gender war is justified. I look at it as deferring to the mutual respect and understanding that ought to exist between people in a committed relationship. A woman photographing her husband undergoing some procedure would be no different. Fletcher (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not impute hostility onto me. This is a matter of international human rights convention. This woman is an adult; we do not have her explicit consent; she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Nobody else can grant consent for her, unless that person can also produce power of attorney. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You ignored my question about whether the issue of human rights applies to this situation. I would argue it doesn't simply because she is unidentifiable. There is nothing about this image that could violate her rights as far as I can see. As I said above, I feel like you're taking a moral issue (and a tenuous one, given she is unidentifiable) and trying to make it a legal one to support your case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your assurance that you're not being hostile; if that was hostility on my own part, I apologize (as well to Blechnic). Please explain which human rights convention, specifically, you are referring to -- which law states or implies a person must have written consent to take a photo of his or her spouse in a private situation and post it to the web. In addition, your claim that we are saying Salim consents on his wife's behalf is a bit of a strawman (or strawperson, if you prefer); as you can see from Olaf Davis' comments above, and the quote to which he refers, Salim did explicitly claim he is publishing this photo with his wife's consent [1]. So it is not a question of him consenting on her behalf, but a question of believing what he has told us, versus forcing him to produce documentation of what he has told us. On Wikipedia we try to assume good faith, so I don't understand why this wouldn't suffice, particularly given the fact that she is not even identifiable in the photo. Fletcher (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to host images with clear and unobstructed rights, particularly when we feature them and run them on the main page. Salim asserts his wife consented; she has not submitted her own consent. She could generate an OTRS ticket quite easily herself, but she hasn't. Now I wish to express these important and delicate points sensitively: suppose for a moment that she does not consent; that she is a very private person. There is enough information in this shot and the photo description and metadata for people who already know this woman to confirm that it is her. Have you ever had someone misunderstand you in a really big way? This is a human rights issue; twelve to twenty million people will see this if it runs on the main page. Of course we can't be cavalier. Durova^Charge! 08:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason that we'd trust an OTRS claiming to be from Salim's wife more than him claiming to have her permission? If I didn't trust Salim not to lie about having asked his wife (though trust him I do), I'm not sure I'd trust him not to fake his wife's name when creating a ticket. I really can't see any way of being more sure about this than we already are.

It doesn't look as though either side in this disagreement is about to change its mind, so unless anything new comes up I will probably leave this to the closer's judgement of our consensus. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think victorrocha's edited version really helped the image noise, though at the cost of some sharpness. Fletcher (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to edit an image, I have .NEF (Nikon Raw) versions of all of these images (somewhere). --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The infant seems too small in the frame of the image. Can we see how it would looked cropped slightly?Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Commenting comment - this isn't about the infant, it's about the process. It's actually good that we see all the doctors, the mother, the operating room. Newborn kids are thirteen to a dozen, but a picture of a team doing a Caesarean are scarce. Keep as is. --Janke | Talk 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose. If this image is about the process of Cesarian section then it doesn't seem to have enough emphasis on that. The creator User:Salimfadhley writes "The focal point of the picture is really well highlighted." which is clearly the infant. The image would be more appropriate if the infant weren't highlighted, and the team of physicians were less dark and less grainy. At first glance this image could be of a cesarian section or vaginal birth. You have to look closely to tell that which it is. This doesn't add much to the encyclopedic content of the article. It definitely has the "wow" factor, but this doesn't meet the criteria to be a featured picture.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent point, until you completely enlarge the image, and look carefully and analyze, you can't tell whether it is a c-section or vaginal delivery. --Blechnic (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This is a C-Section. They would never put up a surgical screen during a normal delivery. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
          • If a birth took place in a hospital it is likely that a sheet very similar in appearance would be placed over the patient.Dwayne Reed (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think that point is as important as you make it out to be. Most of us might not even know what the two deliveries would look like until we'd been through them or we were a medical professional. People would likely see this image because they visited the article, so they would already be aware of what it is depicting. In this case, I think it might be an ambiguous image, but one which is appropriately explained by the article and by the caption, so the fact that it isn't self descriptive isn't important IMO. What it does do well is show the medical environment of a caesarian birth, the baby being delivered, etc. It is still a very useful image for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't people see the image because it appears on the front page? Anyway, I was attempting to comment on the ability of the picture to add to the encyclopedic value of the article. The article and caption certain explain what's going on, but I thought the photo should be able to illustrate the article and not the other way around.Dwayne Reed (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support with preference for Edit 2. Great capture of the atmosphere of a common but not well documented event. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, prefer Edit 2 Encyclopaedic, excellent, keeps from too much information about the mother. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose until proof woman consented provided. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do we need to obtain consent for every image containing a visible human being in a situation that may be considered sensitive to someone (whether it be the person in the image, or a viewer of the image)? How do we judge what is acceptable and what is not? I don't feel we can. I don't think Wikipedia should be censored based on what individuals personally feel are morally ambiguous. We're supposed to be judging the image and its significance in the article, not basing it on our own moral agenda. Morality rests on the shoulders of the original contributor IMO - not us. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Feel free to contact me directly and I can put you in touch with the woman in the photo - that is if you really care that much. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Excuse me; have you examined this discussion's references to the European Convention on Human Rights? Durova^Charge! 07:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • But excuse me, have you replied to my two previous requests for you to tell me exactly how the European Convention apllies to this situation? Since you ask though, I have looked at it, and I cannot see, to the best of my ability, anything in there that would be an issue. The closest match I can find is Section I, Article 8:

        1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

        2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

        • Is this what you are refering to? I don't think it really applies to this situation. If you're refering to something else, please cite it specifically so we can discuss it. As it stands, the European Convention on Human Rights is far to big (and vague for that matter) to wave around without being far more specific about what you mean exactly. Diliff | (Talk)
          • Yes, this is very silly: The convention on human rights is a cumbersome document that serves a similar role as the US Constitution - it guides lawmakers and not citizens. It's simply not relevant to this discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Contribs) 10:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Edit 2 Withdrawing Edit 1 in favor of Diliff's. Good job at making it better BTW. victorrocha (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Very nice, quality is good, composition is good. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support either enyclopedic and interesting. Muhammad(talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 - Given the identity of the photgrapher and the subjects I agree with some comments above that a release is not required. Love the shot especially the focus the lighting brings - Peripitus (Talk) 04:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per ethical issues raised above. Potential legal issues resulting from putting this on the mainpage. If not legality, moral issues resulting from putting this on the mainpage and never knowing what the mother thinks. Remember that Dilbert cartoon? Xave