Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorking Schoolgirls Patiently Waiting For Mum (6258299657) (cropped).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:Dorking Schoolgirls Patiently Waiting For Mum (6258299657) (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Please see File talk:Dorking Schoolgirls Patiently Waiting For Mum (6258299657) (cropped).jpg Trade (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade If the file is deleted, its talk page will also be deleted, and your link will be useless. Please include all relevant information in the discussion itself. Brianjd (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant comment on the talk page is:

In my opinion this image steps over the line established by COM:DIGNITY. There's something prurient about this picture of two teenage, presumably under 18, girls, having their photo taken without their knowledge, even if their faces are not visible. The text on the image on Flickr suggests very strongly they did not know their photo was being taken and gives some insight into the motivations of the photographer: The caption "All Legs and Ladders", and that he "thought their long hair and legs were well worth a snap" implies an objectifying interest that is certainly not taking the dignity of the subjects into account. I don't believe this image is appropriate for Wikimedia.
— User:Cyllel 20:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Brianjd (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:*Maybe we should just consider prohibitiing all images from this guy--Trade (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I'm going to have to say "keep" on this one - there is no way to identify the two in the photo, and it represents the article topics sufficiently. The reason for delete seems to be a moral outrage directed at the photographer and their mindset, not the topic of the photo itself. Wiki is full of images that taken under one context could be considered offensive to some, but under another are beneficial to the encyclopedia. Most of the images on sexually explicit articles fall under that category. I get the argument that it's candid - they seem unaware of the image being taken - but I believe that isn't actually against the law in the UK where presumably this was taken. I'm pretty sure that there's some kind of "lack of expectation of privacy in a public place" - although as before, their faces cannot be seen, so privacy and anonymousness is maintained. Curved Space (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curved Space You have addressed the original reason for deletion (and I agree with your comment to that extent), but you have ignored another reason for deletion given above: the subjects could be upset if they recognized themselves in this photo. Do you have a response to that? Brianjd (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably doesn't help that their city of residence are listed in the coordinates. Trade (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment ‘Withdrawn’ is not the same as ‘closed’; this nomination merits further discussion. Brianjd (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just consider prohibitiing all images from this guy Prohibit all images from someone just because they happen to post a few (apparently consensual) sexual images? That is a very bad idea. Brianjd (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize there were more to the album description. An odd thing to write regardless Trade (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The album description starts: This was a fortuitous meeting of a beautiful exhibitionist and a dedicated voyeur. Although not a word was spoken between us this young woman …. The rest is only displayed when ‘Show more’ is clicked.
@Trade Actually, ‘exhibitionist’ already implies that the images are consensual. The description might be odd, but we must remember that ‘odd’ does not mean ‘immoral’.
For everyone else, I emphasize that the album being discussed here has nothing to do with the image nominated for deletion here (except for belonging to the same Flickr user). The album shows a different person, who appears to be an adult. Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentSigh, guess this is the first and last time i attempt this kind of deletion discussion.--Trade (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Please don’t stop adding structured data, opening deletion requests, or doing anything else that makes Commons better, just because some people hold different opinions. Notice that the comments both above and below this point present conflicting arguments for keeping and deleting this file, with some leaning towards (or explicitly saying) ‘keep’ and some leaning towards (or explicitly saying) ‘delete’. This discussion is important. Brianjd (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I've never participated in a deletion request before, and I noticed it has been "withdrawn" so I'm not sure if my vote counts at this point, but as the person who raised the issue to begin with I feel I should put in my vote anyway. My vote is for deletion, as per the official guideline text at COM: DIGNITY. Whether the image is legal or not is irrelevant, as COM: DIGNITY notes, "Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law." The original source of the image and accompanying text makes absolutely clear it was taken with prurient intent, focused on the bodies and "school girl" attire of the young people in the image. This is a creepshot, which the guideline was clearly in part designed to avoid (hence its alternate shortcut at COM:NOCREEPSHOTS). Whether the faces are visible or not is also not relevant (again, as per the guideline). If it's possible to de-withdraw someone else's deletion request, consider this my doing so. Cyllel (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Comment to my above vote, I notice the page linked is for images of identifiable people - however the specific section appears to me to be intended to cover other pictures in some contexts too, as per this text:
A "downblouse" or "creepshot" photograph is not made ethically acceptable just because the subject's face is cropped out. Cyllel (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a downblouse or upskirt shot, I daresay, no-one would be arguing for keeping it, and I would hope that if a Wikimedian uploaded such shots, they'd be banned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit ironic given that we have categories dedicated to both images of both subjects Trade (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade Ikan Kekek has argued for keeping files involving nudity; I assume they would be OK with downblouse or upskirt shots too, as long as they are consensual. Brianjd (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the page linked is for images of identifiable people - however the specific section appears to me to be intended to cover other pictures in some contexts too Confusing, right? I have proposed renaming that guideline.
Regarding the application of COM:DIGNITY to in-use files, I would like to hear from other users, particularly Rhododendrites and Colin. Brianjd (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer not to get pinged routinely for an opinion on such issues. There are all sorts of things one can find distasteful about the title, and the photographer's and the uploader's contribution history. But the actual image is not a downblouse or upskirt but the kind of scene anyone might see every single day as you walk past a secondary school. One would have to wear blinkers to avoid seeing teenage girls dressed like this. Perhaps that looks odd for users from other countries. I'm sure we can find better images of English school uniform to illustrate Wikipedia and someone should rename the file. It isn't illegal or morally wrong to take photographs of people under 18 in a public area without their consent. Making objectifying comments about them is not fitting Commons purpose, so the title should be changed. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin I don’t ping routinely for the issues you commented on. I pinged for the specific issue of applying COM:DIGNITY to in-use files, which ought to be covered in the guideline (analogous to COM:INUSE). Brianjd (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a linking of in-use and Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and probably should not have one. There is a need to link wrt Commons:Project scope because being in-use almost settles the question of an image being in-scope -- part of our mission is common storage for Wikipedia. The question of moral and legal issues is one for this project to determine, and random Wikimedia projects can't force Commons to retain images this community agrees are unacceptable. I agree with Rhodo's analysis below. This is an image that visually is not problematic (if it appeared in your newspaper, you wouldn't give it a second glance) but, yeh, linking to a "dirty old man's" comments is nasty. -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would suggest explicitly stating that COM:DIGNITY applies even to in-use images. I disagree with that rule and I stand by what I said above about this being an editorial decision. But I won’t argue over this: I just think that the guideline should clarify this. Brianjd (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that's really necessary. COM:INUSE is part of Commons:Project scope. It's not part of any other policy, and the scope policy doesn't claim to override everything else. People citing INUSE when something is nominated for deletion based on COM:PEOPLE is no different than if they argued "keep because it's not a copyright violation". It's just not a relevant argument. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no legal problem (taken in public in the UK), but it's a tough call as far as the moral question. For that part of the equation, I don't think whether someone has added it to a Wikipedia article is all that important. We're not determining whether it's in-scope, after all. We also have to separate the image and the information we have about the image. To look at the image itself, IMO it's not really a problem. The girls are facing away, the angle and timing doesn't seem intended to sexualize, etc. Where it gets tricky is in the information we have. In some cases, we can simply rename, change the description, and so on, but here no matter what we do we'll always have to link to the Flickr source, where (a) the exact location of the photo is documented, eroding part of the unidentifiable claim, and (b) his intention is made clear: he wanted a photo of the young girls' legs. As COM:DIGNITY says, we don't need to see the face to refuse to host creepshots. I wouldn't be voting to delete based just on the photo, but  Weak Delete based on the provenance/context. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites, I certainly understand your point. But does it matter to you how old the photo is? Let's say it was from 1920. Would that change things for you? If so, how old does it have to be? Because I question whether the 11+ years that have passed since the photo was shot blunt the invasion of privacy intended by the creepy photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good question, and I don't have a clear answer. Part of the way I think about COM:DIGNITY is by asking how the subject or their friends/family might feel about the photo if they happened to see it (whether or not other people would be able to identify them). I suspect these girls, even 10+ years later, would feel at least mildly uncomfortable about it (and, in case it needs to be said, we shouldn't be putting anyone in the awkward position of asking them after the fact if they're ok with someone taking a creepshot of them when they were younger).
    The subject of a photo in 1920 is almost certainly dead now, so I think less about the effect the photo has on them or their family, but it would still be a conversation worth having. It reminds me of this thread from a few years ago concerning photograph of slaves. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question: Many of the responses for Delete seem to be based on the origin of the image, that is to say the Flickr account, and the supposed intent of the photographer. Is that a valid reason for deletion? Whatever the intent or rationale of the Flickr image, the image here on Wiki is being used as an example of schoolgirl uniform, and in that respect what is the rationale for deletion? The girls in question are in a public place, facing away from the camera so are anonymous, and are -- as far as I know -- examples of UK school uniform, not kinky creepy, or sexualized uniform that may be seen on any number of the fetish-oriented articles in the project. Which leads me to the next comment. I had to look up "creepshot", and the wiktionary definition doesn't seem to apply here -- although I accept that "by extension" might. However, the term could also be applied to literally hundreds of images on Wikipedia, so should be used with caution, or at least with the acceptance that it is vague and broad in scope, and simply shouting "Creepshot!" is not in itself a valid reason for deletion, or even a valid class of image. Communal shower, Athleisure, Outdoor cooking -- all contain images that to the letter of the law meet the creepshot requirement.
  • What would be the comments here if the Flickr image were to be deleted, so no longer had any connotations apart from the Wikipedia usage? In reality isn't that how this should be judged? It seems to me that in order to show a genuine schoolgirls example of a uniform, you need a genuine schoolgirl. Lord knows that there are plenty of non-genuine examples available -- which is literally the first image returned when searching for "schoolgirl" on commons. Curved Space (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The only problem is that the description we have to link from the source is nasty. The picture itself is fine. But we can't choose not to link the source, as far as I know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The file is being used under a Creative Commons Attribution license (specifically, CC BY 2.0), which requires (among other things) a link to the source. Eventually, the file will enter the public domain, and we can then choose to omit that link. Brianjd (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eventually, the file will enter the public domain, and we can then choose to omit that link." I like your use of "we" then, as though any of us will still be alive at that point, or indeed still participating on something called Wikimedia Commons. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curved Space: The first paragraph raises several issues:
  1. Uploader (and photographer) intentions: In harassment and promotion cases, I have argued that the uploader’s intentions are irrelevant: we should judge each file on its own merits. That would support your argument that the uploader’s intentions are irrelevant here. But the comments above aren’t really clear: is the problem with the uploader/photographer’s intentions, or is it with us having to link to a description of those intentions?
  2. Type of clothing depicted: The only thing that matters is that the clothing depicted is an actual uniform used in a UK school. Comparisons with sexualized images are not relevant: obviously, those the clothing depicted there is similar (similar enough to be recognized as a school uniform), and might even be identical (just worn differently).
  3. Definition of ‘creepshot’: Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#CREEP vs NOCREEPSHOTS might be relevant. I have also complained that the term is vague and even applied to cases that don’t clearly involve sexualization. But it’s clear that ‘creepshot’ means something more than ‘photo taken without consent’.
The images in those articles that depict people are:
You say that each article contains at least one image that is technically a ‘creepshot’; presumably that means a photo taken without consent. But you are really saying something else too: We are allowed to assume that photos are taken without consent. That is interesting.
Your second paragraph also raises multiple issues: separating the image from its description (discussed above) and using a genuine schoolgirl to demonstrate a schoolgirl’s uniform. These issues are grouped together in a short paragraph, suggesting that they are related, but they seem to be separate.
Obviously, we should use genuine subjects as much as possible, and that includes schoolgirls. But everyone already agrees on that.
Obviously, there are plenty of non-genuine schoolgirl examples, but that is not relevant here.
The Commons search results for ‘schoolgirl’ start with the image cited above, followed by Schoolgirl fetish (8025945947).jpg, Schoolgirl fetish (8031920981).jpg and images like Tomb - Karnyushina Svetlana. Schoolgirl art school in Elektrostal. img 04.jpg that don’t depict schoolgirls in any sense. These are terrible results, but that is not relevant here either. Brianjd (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The communal shower images both depict groups of nude people, including faces and genitals. Calling them ‘creepshots’ is particularly disturbing. Brianjd (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't log on here very often, so may miss comments, but I'm not calling them creepshots -- the definition of creepshots is calling them that. I think it a term too vague to be of use, and too easy to misuse. Also, my main point especially to the deletion here is that we're apparently doing our damnedest to remove a picture of two genuine schoolgirls who cannot be identified, yet are absolutely fine with the Misty Mundae image (and all other erotic schoolgirl images here) -- just because we don't like our interpretation of the original photographers rationale for taking the image. Now that's disturbing. Curved Space (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also very conflicted about this photograph. But I have to come down on the side of  Weak delete here because the photographer's intent is very clear, and we do not have to host this file. COM:DIGNITY outweighs its potential education use Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The image is used in the Wikipedia article about school uniforms. Look at the pictures there, there are people whose faces you can see, these are really "pictures with identifiable people". But a picture of two people from behind just standing there? It makes me wonder where the proportionality is. It's okay to question whether you're allowed to take pictures of people who you can tell probably haven't just signed a modeling contract. But why this particular picture? I do not have the feeling that this deletion request only exists because of alleged transgression of morality.

The quoted Commons rule also says something else:

“A "downblouse" or "creepshot" photograph is not made ethically acceptable just because the subject's face is cropped out.”

This rule is about something very different than photographing two people from maybe 20 meters behind, who are also not really in a private or unseemly position.

Edit: I think the title and the description should definitely be changed anyway, they are outrageous. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 08:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I just have done that. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 01:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: File is COM:INUSE and image does not violate COM:IDENT. Issues involving the creepy description by the photographer have been dealt with via normal editing of description and filename. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dorking_Schoolgirls_Patiently_Waiting_For_Mum_(6258299657)_(cropped).jpg&oldid=777618389"