File talk:Tahquitz 1.jpg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alright[edit]

Alright, what the fuck is this? --96.243.180.45 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^LMFAO, seriously right? Creepy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.153.10 (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peeping Tom! Xen 1986 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen 1986 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree, this doesn't seem like the people were aware of the photo being taken. - 24.224.250.102 (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some background to the photo was already explained. Here's another candid taken a few yard away: Everyone smile. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulation / Censorship[edit]

Do my eyes deceive me or has this photo been censored?!?

It appears as if leaves and branches has magically appeared to cover up a bit of innocent skin... but I must be wrong because that would be an astoundingly bad judgement call.

This picture is the main piece of the Free love montage, and... what were you thinking? The entire point of the free love movement was to oppose puritan restraint, and this manipulation betrays everything the movement stood for.

CapnZapp (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to unpack here. Pinging @Light show: (redirect from User:Wikiwatcher1) for that editor's input, as the uploader on Commons.
  • Perhaps this discussion should be taking place at commons:File talk:Tahquitz 1.jpg.
  • The file that was originally loaded for Tahquitz 1.jpg was subsequently uploaded at commons:File:Tahquitz 1 full size.jpg.
  • The current version of Tahquitz 1.jpg appears to have been "sanitized" in that the brush seems to have been moved to conceal the woman's toplessness. Wikiwatcher1's comment on the latest version was update to earlier version per talk although I could not find this discussion.
  • It would be ill-advised merely to revert to an earlier version. This image is used in a number of language Wikipedias for which most of the readership reside in conservative Islamic countries. Reverting to more obvious partial nudity would violate the editorial decisions of the editors in those language Wikipedias.
Just to add, User:Peaceray: no it isn't. It is used by four pages, all at English Wikipedia. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CapnZapp, I see this at commons:File:Tahquitz 1.jpg
== Global file usage ==
The following other wikis use this file:
Peaceray (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not on Commons here and now, User:Peaceray. You are discussing at English Wikipedia. You are discussing a picture hosted at English Wikipedia. Hope that helps. CapnZapp (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A-n-d my comments were regarding reverting the version at commons:File talk:Tahquitz 1.jpg. Peaceray (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that, not here at least. Please try to post relevant comments. To be clear: stop bringing up other wikis and their censorship here at English Wikipedia, User:Peaceray. It is not my problem and it should not be yours either. It is an unwelcome distraction that is not helpful for this discussion. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears @Peaceray is correct here, and this discussion is indeed relevant. It does look like changing the file here will effect other wikis. You could of course just upload a new file (or use the already uploaded File:Tahquitz 1 full size.jpg) which would solve the problem. Relinus (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relinus, no any discussion here will not affect other wikis, because the image is hosted at commons:File talk:Tahquitz 1.jpg. As the MediaWiki software works, it effectively passes through the file at Commons. Peaceray (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I was looking at the "Global file usage" here at File:Tahquitz 1.jpg, but I'll take your word for it. Relinus (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CapnZapp I offer my apologies about any muddying the waters. However, in the first reply to your thread, I stated Perhaps this discussion should be taking place at commons:File talk:Tahquitz 1.jpg. I received no reply. In retrospect, I think that this discussion would have been better served to have been on the talk page of the article(s) on which the image appears. No amount of discussion here at w:en:File talk:Tahquitz 1.jpg will have much bearing on commons:File:Tahquitz 1.jpg or the editorial decisions for individual articles. Peaceray (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that you are (possibly unwittingly) hijacking the discussion. I want to have a discussion, here on English Wikipedia, about the manipulation and usage of the file. I have posted a link to this discussion over at Free Love, so anything we agree on here, should be directly applicable to that article (our project's only article using the file). You however, insist, over and over again, on bringing other, censor-loving, points of view into this. Can you please not do that. I am having a discussion in the mind-set of a regular Westerner naturally and obviously opposed to censorship, and I am going to insist you share that mindset when you post here at English Wikipedia. Please stop worrying about offending people that love censorship, or leave and discuss somewhere else. That said, I chose one of your Wikipedias at random, and made sure I was right. Indeed, the tr.wikipedia.org project does not use any files from English Wikipedia. Its file is hosted at Commons. Which, of course, is why I'm not having this discussion there. I don't want to bring other wikipedias into this and I don't have to and now I am going to ask you to stop doing that. Please, and have a nice day. CapnZapp (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding enwiki, why do we not simply use File:Tahquitz 1 full size.jpg instead on Free love? It would be my preference to reduce the image size as I do not think that it should take priority over the other pictures.
Peaceray (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion from around 12 years ago, someone raises the point: "this doesn't seem like the people were aware of the photo being taken". Wikipedia may not be censored but we should still take consent into account when plastering someone's half-nude body across multiple pages in various languages. Personally I would rather leave it as is since there's no real reason to change it. Relinus (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comments about the photo, originally used in the Kiss article, can read read here. Light show (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issues re consent are resolved to our satisfaction. I don't mind the purely technical changes (edits to resolution and contrast). I agree there is no need for a rug-pull for other languages; I am discussing only the needs of English Wikipedia. What amazes me is how could an overt attempt at censorship have slipped under our radar for so long. But I realize that question isn't really important as long as we rectify our error now. CapnZapp (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that had I added the figleaf before uploading, since modifying photos with Photoshop is a snap, none of this would have become the apparent censorship or "figleaf coverup" issue it's become. LOL. I've got a dozen or so similar photos taken at the event, some actually quite funny. Most everyone, but me, was pretty stoned. One couple nearby saw me wandering by with my camera and the boyfriend playfully tried to pull down his girlfriend's top. On another, there was a group of about 30-50 people, many totally nude, sunning themselves on some rocks. BTW, since many of the couples might have been married or engaged, I'm not sure why some public kissing photo would be related to "free love." But that's another subject. Light show (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Light show! So you are the one that manipulated this photo. I will assume good faith and try to understand why someone would think this is a good idea, but I hope you can understand why Wikipedia editors like me can feel this is an unacceptable practice. The issue here isn't that you manipulated the photo (at least not for me) but that you did so in a manner that represents your version as an uncontroversial better version, an approach that meant that the censoring of the photo has apparently gone unnoticed for so many years. Could I ask you to create a list of all images uploaded to English Wikipedia which you have censored in a similar way: that is, without clearly a) creating a separate image (not merely a "better" version that supersedes the old version) and b) disclosing any changes are intended to censor the image, not just improve the color grading, contrast or somesuch. Much obliged, CapnZapp (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: After being reminded of this query, User:Light show chose to not produce such a list. CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As explained below, the list of all my uploads is on my User page. Presumably, CapnZapp knew, or should have known that, so a reply was not necessary.Light show (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, since you deleted my question from your user talk, I will take that to mean you would prefer to have this discussion here, User talk:Light show. Now then. I presume you are referring to your shortcuts on your user page ("Photos added"). But I asked you not for a complete list of every picture you have ever uploaded (at first glance almost a thousand images including all versions of every file). I asked you for a list of pictures that are censored (photomanipulated in violation of Wikipedia's "Wikipedia is not censored" ethos). Trawling through all of your pictures is an unreasonable demand, especially in the light of you using non-informative edit summaries such as the one you used for this file: update to earlier version per talk. If I didn't assume good faith, I would consider that trying to actively mislead and conceal your censoring efforts - it is not an update to an earlier version, and there was no previous talk discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were, in fact, many repeated instances of true censorship soon after the original image was placed in the Kiss article. It turned the article into a bit of a censorship battleground, not necessarily due to the modification, but to the photo of a heterosexual couple kissing with affection.
It was the lead image, but soon after got replaced by a photo of Rodin's "Kiss" statue, from 1882. When some editor said the statue replacement made the article look somewhat ridiculous, another editor replaced it with a painting of Romeo and Juliet. There were serious discussions about how kissing in public, and even in private, was not something done in some other major countries.
Other frantic efforts to divert attention from the lead photo, had some editors try to soften the apparent shock and awe by adding other images throughout the article, such as a couple kissing in a Roman fresco, gay and lesbians kissing, people kissing stones, walls, rings, sand, and even some supposedly kissing prairie dogs. The current kissing couple photo is the latest acceptable lead image. But if you'd like to restore the one from Palm Springs, feel free. Light show (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please consider not bringing other articles into this. The image is used at Free Love, not Kiss. Secondly, please never add figleafs (literal as well as figurative ones) to pictures you upload to English Wikipedia. Not before you upload them and not after. Never try to hide any attempts at censorship. Instead make sure any such attempts of yours are clearly marked as such, to make it as easy as possible for your fellow editors to make an active choice whether to keep using censored images or not. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. But you never replied to my concern: "I'm not sure why some public kissing photo would be related to "free love." Especially since the "free love" article itself seems unrelated to showing the kissing photo. The article cites details such as "The term 'sex radical' is often used interchangeably with the term 'free lover' ", and "...the phrase free love is often associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination..." Does a photo of two people kissing support such associations?
As for the figleaf, note the lead image in the Censorship article, which shocked Queen Victoria, much as this Palm Springs photo did many readers of Kiss. Rather than put up with the battles that took place between editors there, I probably would have just removed the photo from WP. So I chose a subtle Victorian compromise, knowing that both versions are always available, so the choice is theirs. On the other hand, had I then known that Wikipedia would soon take pride in becoming the world's largest public library of sex images, porn star biographies, and a hundred sex-focused articles, I might have not bothered with the tiny alterated version. I might have just added a link Breast, with a few dozen unfigleafed photos to sooth their curiosity.
Regarding your requests, I took them as attempted humor, since I assumed you knew that all versions of any image in WP image can be seen by clicking on the file name, to learn when, what and who modified anything. You also ask about other images I've uploaded, but I also presume you've visited User:Light_show, which lists and links to all my uploads. In any case, since your attack-oriented style of discussion seems very familiar, may I ask you to list all current and previous user names you've gone by before replying or requesting anything else? It would be appreciated. Thank you. Light show (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that the consent issues have been resolved. First of all, while the picture is in the public domain by the author, the commons page literally has a disclaimer that states: "Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses."
Furthermore, the image was taken in at a hippie festival in 1969 (53 years ago). While in the moment the people were clearly fine being viewed naked (although still might not have known a picture was being taken), I find it highly plausible that now in their 70s they would not love the idea of that photo being the lead image of a wikipedia article.
To be clear, there is an ethical (and legal) difference between putting someone’s likeness on the internet and putting their nude likeness up. Relinus (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with Peaceray, please consider that this talk section is called "Manipulation / Censorship". If you want to discuss other matters, how about you start new talk sections, such as "how to not anger people that can't handle a bit of boob" or "if people made a willing choice to appear nude in public, do they get to take that choice back 53 years later?" (hint: no). This talk section is about the fact that overt censorship slipped under the radar for 12 years. Now choose: either respect the collapsible blocks I used on off topic discussions or please start new talk sections for what you want to discuss, and let's agree to move each bit of discussion to its relevant talk section. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, somewhat boldly, implemented Peaceray's suggestion (Regarding enwiki, why do we not simply use File:Tahquitz 1 full size.jpg instead on Free love? It would be my preference to reduce the image size as I do not think that it should take priority over the other pictures.) because I want the discussion to proceed in a constructive fashion. I locally uploaded the latest version of the file before censorship (File:20110715204810!Tahquitz 1.jpg including edits to improve image quality and size) and put that to use over at Free love. At least I sincerely believe that's in line with his suggestion. Absolutely no impact on other wikis than English Wikipedia are intended. Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Tahquitz_1.jpg&oldid=1177042169"