Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman outside Sepulchre-2.jpg

File:Woman outside Sepulchre-2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 23:50:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Woman outside Sepulchre-2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman outside Sepulchre-2.jpg

•  Info created by Almonroth - uploaded by Almonroth - nominated by Canoe1967 -- Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment. This is a cropped version or second shot of the same subject. Should I link the other file somehow to view?

Looking at it again, I think it is a cropped version. The UUID is the same in the EXIF. I am not sure how to add the other as an alt, but I did add a thumb. I came across this image by fluke. The creator has a nice camera and does good work. Someone may wish to go through their other uploads.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Wow--Citron (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- JLPC (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Wow!!! You may add the other shot as an alt; but I like this more. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose COM:PEOPLE, nothing special, value for wiki? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I added tags as per COM:PEOPLE. Value could easily be fashion, antique column graffiti (after crop), facial features/expression, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"could be fashion"??? "After crop" is not visible on that picture, and facial expression....So just because it could be nice, it does not necessarily be educational. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Could easily be fashion", please don't misquote me and see the IP comment below. An article could easily be written and use the image as a example of social values reflected in fashion. When I said 'crop' I meant the column section could be cropped out as it seems to be the best image we have of the graffiti on this famous building. Another reason for featuring, you may wish to google National Geographic cover for June, 1985. Let me know if you would oppose that image as well. I find them very similar. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment The other version has more interest with more of the antique column graphiti avialable. In both images there is disconnect between the modesty implied by the head covering and the deeply plunging neckline of the sundress. That could be a plus or a minus depending on your perspective.

This is exactly why this picture was interesting to me. The apparent contradiction between modesty and sexuality. The woman appeared to be a model preparing for what looked like a photo shoot outside the door of one of the most important religious buildings for several faiths. There were several people looking on with obvious scorn. I just wish there was a way to have taken the picture of the spectators. Almonroth (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose – No illustrative or educational value regarding the Holy Sepulchre, and the same is true for topics of graffiti and fashion: these features are all too small and obscured by the dominant presence of the woman. Is there a reason to make her a Featured subject? If so, it's not explained. Also, the issue of personal image rights does not seem to have been settled definitively. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per SteveStrummer --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment. I have emailed my embassy in Tel Aviv (taviv@international.gc.ca). I asked them if local laws do not require consent if an image is taken in a public place with no expectation of privacy. In most countries consent is not required. I have also added a help me tag to the image talk to have an editor check locally.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose who's that girl, she is well known, what will be the use of the iamge --Ezarateesteban 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I already have an idea for how to use this picture out of Commons. Remember, that this is another purpose of COMFPs, the outreach to the real world. All this having been said, I strongly support this. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC) PS I want her phone number
•  Comment. File:Old and wise.jpg. This image has similar points brought up here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Strongest possible oppose - there should be no implicit sexualisation of the holiest place in the world. --Claritas (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Beauty is not the same as sexualization. Unless you really want to forbid Charlize Theron, Keira Knightley and Natalie Portman to visit that place whatsoever. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I think the discussion here reflects the same feeling I had when I saw the woman set up and pose at the pillars. When other people were putting wishes on notes in the cracks of the columns and kissing them, praying, she was posing in a very obvious contradiction of mores. Whether it was for money or for personal portfolio, it seemed a challenge to establishment. I think it very interesting. Almonroth (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the opposing voters underestimate the value of human culture, life and civilization. We really need a lot of people candids describing different cultures and lifestyles. It is easy to take the photos of bugs (like me), architecture and landscapes than these type of works, so should be more appreciated. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing special for me. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 11:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support like the girl. good expression Zivya (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support good portrait.. but IMO should be removed from the category Category:Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem) because it is not an illustration of that church. Ggia (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment. The embassies referred me to the Protection of Privacy Law 5741 1981. I googled it and found that consent is not required in public places in Israel.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per SteveStrumer, and SteGrifo27. Moreover, I can't find anything about the Holy Sepulchre, and about sexualization. It is a picture of a pretty young woman, nothing provocative, but nothing really interesting to me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)