Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michele Merkin 1.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American model Michele Merkin

[edit]
Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio, are commonly considered physically attractive because they are thought to indicate physical health and high fertility to a potential mate. This model's thin figure is also usually considered attractive in Western culture.
Reason
High-quality image, extremely relevant to the articles which it illustrates. (Videmus Omnia's reason.)
First off, this is an excellent, professional image of a contemporary, attractive model. The lighting, composition, and selection are excellent. Secondly, User:Videmus Omnia has been doing a great service by contacting celebrities and obtaining permission to use representative images under the terms of the GFDL. (See User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images for details.) I think it would be a great way to encourage more of this by featuring some of the best images obtained in this way. (Quadell's reason)
Articles this image appears in
Michele Merkin, Physical attractiveness
Creator
Michele Merkin.
But I think the one nominated is the best. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong SupportIf wikipedia had more images like this it would double in trafficPaco8191 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but don't you think her biographical article is lacking in details such as date of birth etc Bleh999 08:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- Author is listed as Michele Merkin but she obviously did not take the pictures. There is no proof here that the photographer, who is the original copyright owner released this or gave permission for Michelle to release this. Additionally, there is nothing in this picture that sets it apart from the thousands of other pictures of half-naked supermodels in the world. using this picture everywhere and nomming it for FP is tantamount to advertising for this one supermodel. This nomination seems to be more about little boys getting excited about a half-naked woman than true encyclopedic value. Additionally nominator (Quadell) has spammed every page remotely related to naked women with these images with flimsy reasons for inclusion, then reverted when they were removed even though consensus to include does not exist. pschemp | talk 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ms. Merkin is the copyright-holder, because the photographer created the photograph as a "work for hire". This image has had OTRS approval as being released under the GFDL. There is as much "proof" that it is released under the GFDL as any featured image. What sets this image apart from the thousands of other pictures of half-naked supermodels is that this is a free image. If this is advertising for the model, then this is advertising for Mccoy Tyner, this is advertising for Nikkor, etc. In addition, please leave attacks on me out of this. This is a debate about the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. The OTRS queue hasn't approved it yet, and if the information proving she is the copyright holder is so easy to get, why can't you produce it? 2. "Because it's free" is NOT a good reason for it to be a featured pic. There is no special artistic merit here. Additionally, professional photogrpahers do a lot for hire, and then usual procedure is to release the picture to the person for use, but not under a free liscense. Nowhere has it been shown that the photographer has released the rights to Michelle or anyone else. pschemp | talk 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per pschemp. Image is not that special, and adds no valuable information to Wikipedia. Nominator's recent edit history suggests a promotional campaign of some sort,[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] tho I have no other evidence for that assumption. / edg ☺ ★ 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not on a promotional campaign, and I had never heard of this model before a week ago. My only interest is in promoting "free content", and I feel this is a great (and, yes, sexy) example of free content. By the way, are you aware that one of your links shows me reverting obvious vandalism (not related to images), and that others of your links show me adding unrelated images to articles? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, "because it's free is not a good reason for it to be a featured picture. This no different than hundreds of other model pictures, and not outstanding artistically. pschemp | talk 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment assumes bad faith. I am withdrawing it. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ...sorry. For all the same reasons discussed in wearying detail in the Military Brat nomination below. The picture doesn't have enc value, it contributes no information. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)New vote below ~ Veledan • Talk 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I really see nothing special in the picture, and for a number of other reasons as well I just don't see this picture on the main page. Just a note though, I think we'll all be better off commenting on the picture's merits of becoming featured, rather that on the nominator's motives. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it ever acceptable to have a professional-quality image of a supermodel as a featured image? If not, why not? And if so, what is it about this particular image which is lacking, where another might be worthy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate you meant the first question to be rhetorical, but no, I can't think of a reason why any professional supermodel pic should be featured, unless it's an exceptional example of a famous photographer's work, or is notable for some other reason. These pictures abound in every magazine, it needs to have something to set it apart to be a featured picture for an encyclopedia. Yes we promote less striking and attractive pictures, but it's the enc value that sets them apart. ~ Veledan • Talk 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support new and refreshing by FP standards - so rare to get images such as these under free licenses. And, duh, it obviously illustrates Erotica, and Physical attractiveness (for about 45% of the population). Debivort 18:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't really like the message this sends young women, splashing this around physical attractiveness, etc. It's encyclopedic for Malkin, but... Adam Cuerden talk 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeNeutral It could be ENC, it might be free use and it is very eye-catching... But, as noted above, the nominator has plastered this picture everywhere on wikipedia, the model owns the copyright, and her name is very prominent in all the articals. These facts lead me to belive that this nom is for the purpose of premotion of Michele Merkin. Basicly, advertisement. I might be wrong but (as also mentioned above) this picture is nothing special compared with the other 5 trilion images of half naked women. therefor, i don't belive it should be featured. If it does become featured, I would feel better about a caption that doesn't included here name, to prevent an advertising motive and also to increase the anomity and there for ENC value. -Fcb981 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith. I have been a Wikipedian since 2004, and I've never shilled for anybody. I'm not even the image uploader, and I only edited the model's article once (to add this image to it). Please don't accuse me of promoting one model over another. Also, I didn't "plaster this picture everywhere on Wikipedia". I added it to exactly two articles. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I got that information from the links provided by User:Edgarde above. It (or one of the alternatives) was added to Model, History of erotic depictions, Pornography, Erotica, Physical attractiveness, and of course Michele Merkin. I didn't check your user page/contribs and now, in doing so I have become confident that you arn't an advertiser of any kind. Even so, I am still not convinced that this is a shining example of the above articals. Sorry for jumping to the conclution that you were a promoter. -Fcb981 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite whatever the motives behind the nomination may be, I must disagree with above comment. This is an exceptional photograph. The backlighting creates a quasi-religous halo around the model's face, accentuating her beauty and even recalling the Birth of Venus, at least for this critic anyway. Composition is excellent.
  • Strong Support - I think that a number of people commenting are not thinking about this right. I fully agree that they're are hundreds of similar pictures published in various magazines (and available online), however this one in particular has a very high degree of artistic merit, and is in three articles, two of which are major non-biographical works (actually since removed from Erotica). Most importantly, to me, is this is a very unique image to be released under a free license. An example of a commercial modeling photograph, is a good thing to feature (once, and only once). Zakolantern 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support As Zakolantern said, this is definitly a once, and only once type of thing, but as it passess all the necessary criteria, I can't see why this one picture shouldn't be featured. I mean, I can attest that this image does an outstanding job of illustrating erotica and physical attractiveness...--Mad Max 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sexist and not encyclopaedic. --FSHL 09:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no ribs, so I figure she's healthy enough. --Golbez 18:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FSHL, this isn't about whether it's good or bad. This person has made her career out of being a model... so it's more fitting and enc to have a picture of her as a model than just an ordinary picture. Whether or not she is a sex object is completely irrelevant... and more importantly NPOV mandates that we accept that she is a model and not try to judge the moral character of her work. gren グレン 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t want »to judge the moral character of her work« because finally we’re all running for the money but would like to clarify that this picture simply can’t be neutral. --FSHL 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reproach »chauvinist and not encyclopaedic« would be definitively appropriate if it would has been nominated as featured picture candidate... --FSHL 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand what the problem with this photo is, i agree with gren グレン above, i mean for a picture to be encyclopedic, it should show the person, thing, etc, in action in what it is known for. In the article Ronaldinho all the pics are of him playing football, which is fitting since he is a footballer. There are numerous articles and pictures on wikipedia that are like this. Since she has made a living as a model, isnt it fitting that her article is accompanied with a picture of her modeling? I understand where you are coming from, because if this picture was nominated cuz shes "hot" or somethin like that, then yes that is sexist. but if you read the reason above for nomination, the only mention to attractiveness is saying that she is "attractive" which corrolates to the article on physical attractiveness. And yes if she were all bones, like a nicole richie, then yeah thats bad and we shouldnt support it on wikipedia. Also if michelle were in a demeaning position, say wearing hand-cuffs while a man holds her on a leash (i know thats an extreme example) then definitely not. But it is a classy picture of a beautiful woman in front of a beautiful background, and the picture itself, without any bias is a great picture. And like an earlier user said, we cant judge her for what she does for a living, whether it be the president or a porn star. We users may have our own thoughts on certain subjects, such as i believe that wikipedia should not have nudity on it, but as a whole the community has concluded that for encyclopedic sources there needs to be on certain articles. I want you to not be offended, cuz all we are trying to do on wikipedia is make a better encyclopedia for everyone. And if someone out there wants to look up "model," "supermodel," "Michelle Merkin," or "physical attractiveness" then i think this photo would add encyclopedic content to those respective articles. I hope this helps, like i said i dont want to offend you, i just want to show you where all of the "Supports" are coming from.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t have any problems with nudity or any kind of sex on WP but I’ve got definitively a problem with this image as a featured picture candidate because IMHO it didn’t fulfil the rules in particular number 8 and 9. --FSHL 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that was an example of my own personal thoughts, i wasnt implying you thought that, and i understand the debate on #8 but i dont understand what you mean by #9. I understand how the neutrality could come into question, that is pretty much the debate that has been brought up on this page and it will probably be decided by an admin. But what do u mean by it doesnt fulfill #9? From what I can see and read and what I know about photography (which i admit isnt a lot) this photo alterations make the photo look better (my opinion).
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It applies: »More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text« – but there’s simply no description about that. I really know no professional (fashion) photographer who doesn’t make substantial use of Photoshop. In particular her backside, parts of her legs and her face are definitively retouched. --FSHL 09:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but all of your arguments are completely bogus. Do you have any proof that she was, in fact, extensively touched up, especially her legs and backside? None, other than your intuition. If we do not know, for a fact, exactly what was touched up, how are we to describe what was? This is how the image came to us; I'm sure saying that it was touched up would qualify as original research. I believe I debunked your argument for criteria 8 with my reply to Kla’quot below.--Mad Max 10:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just look the picture with 400% enlargement and be surprised how badly it was retouched – especially at her face. And no, you »debunked« in fact nothing but clarified your POV... --FSHL 14:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised at how well they were touched up, if in fact they were, because seeing as how most people have supported the images, including a few who undoubtedly have extensive experience with image editing, I would say that's a pretty good indication others haven't spotted any of these "badly retouched areas".--Mad Max 22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any (but only one) - Professional photographs, freely licensed, and they fulfil all of the FP criteria. Iorek85 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support initial photo. You have to take FPCs at face value. If the image is of good quality, adds to the encyclopedia, and looks superb, then there should be no reason to oppose it. Simple as that, right? └Jared┘┌t┐  12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (I would support, but as of this posting, the nominated image is not contained in any articles.) I should point out that I do not think that opposition to sexism is a valid reason for opposing the article-- we have featured images of dead soldiers and of whipped slaves; this doesn't mean that Wikipedia supports war or slavery. Spikebrennan 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To summarize so far, two users have opposed this nomination because I have added it to too many articles, and they suspect I have a conflict of interests. (I added this image to two articles, and added the three related images in the gallery above to a total of four articles. I don't think my actions were inappropriate, and even if they were, I don't see how that would make this image less feature-worthy.) One of those two users also opposed because he doubts the GFDL status, even though the model has stated that she owns the copyright and that she releases it under the GFDL. Another user opposed because he feels it doesn't have encyclopedic value, even though it's used to depict a notable celebrity in an article about her. Another opposed because it's "nothing special", and he doesn't want the article on the main page for "other reasons". Another opposed because he doesn't like the message it sends, and another because he thinks the image itself is sexist. A final user opposes because it wasn't used in any articles (this has been fixed). I hope the deciding admin will take into account the reasons given by those opposing, and not rely solely on a "head count". – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.That pretty much his the nail on the head. Too many times do I see a FXC get quashed because of illegitimate oppose votes and the closing admin's blatant indifference to the actual content of the oppose (or for that matter, even support) votes. So I hope that the closing admin is sensible enough to judge the opinions here rationally, and if not, I would urge you to allow someone else to close this FPC. └Jared┘┌t┐  16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main oppose reason and others have stated this too is that this picture isn't any more spectacular than the thousands of other pictures of supermodels in the world. There is nothing special artistically here that sets it apart from others of its genre. That's a very valid oppose reason. Additionally, I'm not comfortable making this a featured picture because doing so is free advertising for this model. Wikipedia is not here to promote one supermodel over another. pschemp | talk 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So would you support de-featuring these other featured images which could be seen as advertising? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Photo 1 Other than this being a rare free-use image of a celebrity that is depicted well (compared to photos that caught the person on stage at a concert or at a convention or something similar, which are still good photographs, but the subject is not ready for the photo, so they are not putting themselves in their best light, theoretically). The picture itself is well done (as it was taken by a professional, I assume), and it has merit in the model's article and it could be used to depict other articles. Also, any complaints of sexism, I believe, should not be used to oppose the nomination, the picture is used to represent the subject in question (Ms. Merkin), the subject was the person that allowed the image to be on the encyclopedia. To claim this photo is of an attractive woman or erotica is personal opinion, but the article that this is now in, Michele Merkin, removes personal opinion, and it is used to describe the subject. --WillMak050389 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This would be a good image for cheesecake and similar articles, and it is unusual to have a free image like this. I support Quadell's project to get good-quality free images of celebrities, as many of the ones we have are fair use or poor-quality. I do think s/he should relax during the FPC review, though. --TotoBaggins 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Statements of "sexist" or "creates a bad attitude for bad women" degrades the FPC process. I do not think either of those statements are true, but even if they are, the picture could be a FP. Let me go through the rules, in detail: 1) Is a VERY high technical standard. No one has disagreed with this. 2) High Resolution - also, no one has disagreed. 3) Is among Wikipedia's best work. Yes. It is - the quality level is superb (because it was a professional shoot, which most Wikipedia photographs are not) 4) Free License. 5) Adds value to multiple articles, including her biography. 6) Accurate. 7) Good caption. 8) "Is neutral" - the question that people seem to be disputing. If you assume good faith, and listen to the nominator's comments, it is neutral. And it's not like other models have donated work for use with a free license. 9) no problems with digital manipulation. Considering it meets all the rules and we have very little similar work, and getting similar work is hard, I wanted to explain my support further. Zakolantern 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would add value to multiple articles, if Pschemp would stop reverting me when I try to place the image in any other article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whining here because you don't have consensus for a mass spam campaign will hardly help your cause. Besides, it's hardly like I'm the only one who has raised objections. However, this isn't the place for such a discussion. pschemp | talk 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are the only one who has reverted these contributions and not apologized for it. Calling my addition of images to five articles a "mass spam campaign" is rude and disingenuous. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sure, why not? It's very good quality and is actually free. -- Grandpafootsoldier 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the uploader, I also want to state that I have no particular vested interest in promoting this model's career, either. I normally seek out photos per WP:ERP by hitting 'random article' until I find an interesting article that needs a photo, and sometimes I'll go through biographies in a category that seems interesting. (I tend to make more requests from models than other people, since they are more likely to reply, and their articles are frequent targets for non-free image uploaders.) This page shows image requests I've sent out, this one shows images I've received under free license. Ms. Merkin was just one of many who replied to my queries. (And if more celebrities decide to contribute high-quality free images, how does that harm the encyclopedia, no matter what their motivation for doing so is?) Videmus Omnia Talk 18:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Excellent photo and free content. Wiki at its best --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia needs more Sexist Self-Promotion. 8thstar 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I really appreciate the work that goes into securing free content on all topics, so I am a bit reluctant say anything negative here. But Michele Merkin's glamour photography is just not very valuable encyclopedically; the world is plastered with such photos, and Ms. Merkin is not exactly a highly notable person—in short I fear noone will learn anything from this photo other than what Michele Merkin looks like. I would of course 100% support a photo of comparable technical quality for Sophia Loren, if by some miracle that could be obtained.--Pharos 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support I don't think there's any question that this photograph represents technical excellence (up to and including Photoshop, I'm quite certain) as it is in commercial photography today. From an artistic standpoint it's reasonably good as well -- certainly high above what all but the top rank of our own contributors accomplish (which they probably could with the same resources). It represents several encyclopedic subjects well, topics which as noted are often fending off non-free images. There may be models more famous than Ms. Merkin, but she is the most famous model (apparently) to have done so to date. I believe the presence of this image as part of our free content will do as much as anything else, and possibly more, to promote its existence and encourage similar donations. All that said, I understand some of the objections stated above, but they seem outside the scope of this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The technical quality notwithstanding, my main concern is that by promoting the picture of an active, working model for Featured Picture, Wikipedia could be contributing to her further commercial success. That, I believe, is not Wikipedia's mission. In that, this picture is no different from a high-quality still from a TV Coke commercial (assuming permission had been granted by the Coca Cola Company). For a non-profit encyclopedia to indirectly contribute to profit in such a manner is contrary to its principles. It would be setting a very dangerous trend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you support de-featuring these other featured images which could be seen as advertising? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those images are quite different. Featuring a lens to explain aperture (or whatever the task was on hand) doesn't directly contribute to the success of that particular brand, since, when people buy a camera, they look at the specs, read reviews, etc. The same with the hood ornament, people don't drive a Bentley for reasons of the hood ornament alone; however, a super-model (or whatever grade of model this particular woman is) is the image— there is nothing more to it. I am not now talking about the particular product (a bikini perhaps) that the model might be selling, but rather of herself as a brand. If photographic images hadn't been invented, old cars, hood ornaments, racing cars would still be there. But super-models? Forget it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns about personality rights. These images are indeed free (as in freedom) in terms of their copyright status, but whereas many photographs that are featured on Wikipedia and Commons can be used for commercial purposes or can be modified without restrictions, these cannot (due to personality rights. --Iamunknown 20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personality rights don't really enter into it. To quote GMaxwell, "There are no personality rights implications for Wikimedia's activities: they are only an issue when you use a persons image to promote something or suggest an endorsement in advertising." So yes, someone could potentially do something illegal with this photo, as is true for all photo of recognizable celebrities (quite a few of which are featured). The photo is still free, and our use doesn't cause any problems. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say that personality rights would come into concern for our use of the image; I said that they would come into concern for use beyond Wikipedia. I realize that is not a copyright issue, and I realize that there are other illegal uses of images that are neither personality rights- nor copyrights-related, but I expressed my opinion anyways. --Iamunknown 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good picture. Let alone perhaps other articles, it is encyclopedic for sure in the article Michele Merkin. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2007
  • Support initial photo - passess all the necessary criteria. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' - It's maybe the best modern image of a living person in Wikipedia (and yes, photos of people are encyclopedic). It's no more "commerical" than many previous featured images and articles we've had. --Abu badali (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original nomination Very stunning and certainly eye catching pic. Exceeds all the FP requirements. As mentioned above, other more "commercial" pics were perviously promoted without controversy (more or less). The only qualm I have is the potential outcry when the pic is featured on the main page (like with the eyeball surgery and dead dolphin pics). However, I hardly believe that should be a reason to oppose the pic. Oh, and it was really awkward to view the pic at full res at an internet cafe overseas...with everyone staring at my screen after the pic popped up. ;) Jumping cheese 04:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV should be read by anyone who opposes this image because it may be "sexist" or promotes a "bad message for young women". They are simply not the questions that should be addressed by this discussion in my opinion. (Quotes taken from two comments above in this discussion). Also, a number of pictures we have featured have people who would, if we acted in such a manner, have paid Wikipedia to either feature or to NOT feature the image. This is, to me, irrelevant, and certainly not one of the Wikipedia FP criteria. While I do assume good faith, I think that on some level people who brought up that issue are not considering the nomination on its merits but instead justifying their emotional reaction. I would welcome comments on this issue, since I know it is a touchy subject. Zakolantern 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sense-free censorship reproach has simply nothing to do with my valid objection. If I really would like to censor this image I’d make a deletion requests. But I don’t. --FSHL 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, professional quality free images of supermodels are very new to WP. If this becomes the norm, I'd have no problem delisting it, but as it stands it represents WP's best works. This is definitely a new and unique thing for WP and it's very enc to have her picture as a model since that is why she is famous. gren グレン 12:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the one where here breasts are most visible ;-). Fulfils all the criteria and it's something new.--Svetovid 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Perfectly illustrates the subject of the article and the subject's profession. Also, the rarity of the image (a free use image of a supermodel) adds to the usefulness for the project. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-18 20:54Z
    • Ms. Merkin is not a supermodel (please read that article). She's a "normal" model and a minor televisoon personality.--Pharos 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for being confusing. If one celebrity is willing to offer professional images in a free format, it can "inspire" others to do the same, which can only improve our articles. And the Delist procedure, combined with careful scrutiny, should prevent any potential flood of free celebrity photos on here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 19:09Z
  • Support Meets all the criteria, great pic that illustrates the article in a great way, the pic itself is high quality and as long as it is free, i support it.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with Josh Matthews, meets the requirements and is free. 64.5.88.115 00:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good camera work, and very very good subject. Chris H 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Easily meets all the Featured picture criteria. Abecedare 07:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've noticed many oppose votes are citing neutrality, and to be honest, it's taken me a while to figure how it is neutral. This image displays the subject, Michele Merkin. Where many FPs display an object, an animal, or an event, this image is being nominated to represent Ms. Merkin. It shows her in her natural light, I presume, at a photoshoot. If this image were being nominated as a representation of an ideal woman or bodily perfection, then this wouldn't be neutral, but I believe it is neutral. Any thoughts? --WillMak050389 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this as a picture of a Model working as a model. It's like a picture of a musician performing, a dancer dancing or an athlete competing. In this regard, this is completely neutral, as it accurately documents something real. --Abu badali (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When this nomination started, the picture was nominated only for Physical attractiveness and Model I think. In those contexts the neutrality might be up for debate, though personally I opposed it for lack of enc value in those articles. I'll support it in the context of the model's own article ~ Veledan • Talk 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Great snap but violates criteria #4 (Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.) and #7 (Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption). The article of Michele Merkin is very poor and this image adds no further understanding about her. The photo can be considered if it is used for other articles that deals with modeling, photo shoots like these etc. But the pic is a no-go in the present state. --Kalyan 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. The image is now used in Physical attractiveness with the caption "Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio, are commonly considered physically attractive because they are thought to indicate physical health and high fertility to a potential mate. This model's thin figure is also usually considered attractive in Western culture." I'm certainly willing to footnote the points in this caption if they are controversial, and am open to suggestions for a caption change. Does this address your concern? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good work. I think those criteria have been sufficiently met now. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 19:06Z
  • Support. Though this has no doubt been modified considerably, it is a fine example of what it is: a contemporary glamor model photo (seems like glamour photography would be a good place for it, as well), with all the kitsch that goes with that. It adds value to the articles it's in, certainly. If we had a flood of high quality professional images like this, then we would quickly have to rethink the balance between de facto advertising and highlighting Wikipedia's original content. But that's a problem we want to have. The sooner that people in the entertainment and fashion industries realize that it is to their benefit to release free/libre photos, the better. As for sexism, it certainly has that potential (and I would actually say that putting it at the lead image in physical attractiveness is a bit biased, even if the caption tries to specify the cultural embeddedness of this particular view of attractiveness), but also has the potential to be used enlightening ways. Part of the problem is that physical attractiveness has a decidedly Western, presentist, male bias; as Wikipedia articles improve, so will the contexts in which this photo is used.--ragesoss 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changed vote. I wouldn't support in the context of the originally nominated articles, but happy to support in the model's own article. We might not want too many commercial-style shots as FPs but one will be a good addition ~ Veledan • Talk 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent image, very beautiful picture. --Carioca 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per pschemp. I would even say this picture is not as good as those found at any time on any magazine rack. The free license alone isn't enough. Spebudmak 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lighting looks cheesy to me and the composition of the background is mediocre. There are many free-licensed photos out there which win more aesthetic points. The excessive thinness of this person actually contradicts the caption's assertion that our concept of physical attractiveness is based in recognizing signs of health and fertility. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merkin is excessively thin by whose standards? Merkin's ribs aren't poking out, her shoulders and hips are not bony to the point of being frightening to look at, and, she actually has a butt. Compared to truly thin models — or even the average model — Merkin is not excessively thin. Or are we "measuring her up" by the standards of Americans, with 74% of the U.S. population overweight? Because if that's what you're talking about, then I wholeheartedly agree, compared to the average American she is definitely "too skinny". What do you suggest we change the caption to? By the way, if there are many free-licensed photos of models out there, which "win more points," then please nominate them, because as far as I can tell, the general consensus here is that images of this caliber and a free license are difficult to obtain. --Mad Max 07:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you going to retract your oppose or at least make the slightest effort to explain to me how I did not answer any of your objections? Your primary arguments were cheesy lighting and mediocre background. Fair enough, though if you read the entire debate I think you will find that few agree with you when it comes to technical and artistic quality. Hopefully, the deciding admin will take that into consideration. Your second issue was Merkin's "excessive thinness," though I believe I was correct in saying that she is not excessively thin by the standards of the modeling industry. You were also concerned about the "contradiction" in the caption. I do not see any contradiction, as the caption reads "symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio, are commonly considered physically attractive because they are thought to indicate physical health and high fertility to a potential mate." Merkin has a symmetrical face, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio. This would make the caption true. The caption makes no assertions regarding thinness and physical health and high fertility, only saying that Western culture usually considers thin to be beautiful. This is also true. I asked you what the caption should be changed to, although you ignored that request. I wish you would show the rest of us the "many free-licensed photos out there" of models as well. By the way, I apologize for not having checked your profile first. --Mad Max 08:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll forgive you for thinking I was American :) I don't understand though why you're still going after arguments I didn't make. I didn't say that Merkin was excessively thin by the standards of the modelling industry, I said she is excessively thin, which is quite a different concept. I said that there are many more aesthetic free-licensed photos out there, and you're replying as if I said that there are more aesthetic free-licensed photos of models.
Anyway, after thinking some more, I am even more convinced that these pictures are inappropriate for the caption and for the lead of the Physical attractiveness article. Merkin's face is not particularly symmetrical in any of these pictures, her face and lips are too small to illustrate these concepts when the picture is viewed within in the article, and the fact that she is scantily clad and seductively posed is a huge distraction. The concepts in this article, which include, "Physical attractiveness is distinct from, but can include, sexual attractiveness," would be much better supported by frontal pictures of people wearing at least a swimsuit. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this ridiculous argument is going too far. This is similar to the bogus argument that says featuring a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger would be inappropriate because he is muscular. Apparently, because some men do not look as good as he does, it is okay to label pictures of Schwarzenegger as "chauvinistic". I suppose if this utter rubbish does not end now someone will eventually have the audacity to oppose an otherwise excellent picture of Stalin, arguing that, because Stalin was a communist, featuring a portrait of him would be POV. Same thing with a portrait of Einstein (too smart), a picture of a gun (pro-violence, or something), and Rosie O’Donnell (too fat, promotes obesity). It is a scary thought that people no longer have to leave their point of views at the door and judge a picture on technical and encyclopedic quality. If you think Merkin is too thin, that is one issue, but opposing the picture on the grounds that you don't share the same standards as Merkin and I do on what counts as "too thin," is ludicrous. On the issue of free-licensed photos, why exactly did you bring that up if you were not talking about models? I'm sure there are many free-licensed photos out there, but not many of models, and that is what we're talking about here. As for physical attractiveness; you have to be kidding me. Any normal person can tell her face is symmetrical, as image 3 does an adequate job of showing facial symmetry. You're forgetting that physical attractiveness does not only deal with the face, but the body as well. If we just got a close-up of her face, we could not discuss low waist-hip ratio, could we? And regarding your issues with nudity, luckily that is a none-issue, as Wikipedia is not censored.--Mad Max 09:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only you stated that »featuring a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger would be inappropriate because he is muscular« – and you’re right that’s really ridiculous. But it isn't about Arnold Schwarzenegger, Stalin, Einstein or someone else. It’s about a model and as well known at the Madrilenian fashion week Pasarela Cibeles in September 2006 by resolution of the district government the appearance of models whose body mass index (BMI) was below 18 has been forbidden as preventive measure against anorexia nervosa... --FSHL 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that is what you said; "The reproach »chauvinist and not encyclopaedic« would be definitively appropriate if it would has been nominated as featured picture candidate..." in an above post. Anyway, I might go with the BMI argument if you can cite your sources which say Merkin has BMI below 18. --Mad Max 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's just that I don't grasp the argument that the photo objectifies women. This is a photo, contributed by the woman shown in it, of her expressing herself in her chosen artistic career. It doesn't objectify women any more so than any other photo of a person. But this has already been discussed by others further up the page. My comment immediately above was inappropriately sarcastic and I am withdrawing it. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg MER-C 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Michele_Merkin_1.jpg&oldid=1248882716"
OSZAR »