Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files in Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst

[edit]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony lady.jpg. There is no proof that the people depicted in Klashorst's nude photographs were of age or consented to publication.

Genericusername57 (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply

  •  Comment and  Question I have no principal issue with deleting those or at least most of them, but at first glance it feels a bit too broad and vague to me as well. The pictures seem to cover a broad range from (pointless) pornographic material to potentially useful for educational and illustrative purposes. I also don't know what the exact guideline/requirement with regard to proving age and consent is. Is there particular problem or suspicion with the author/uploader? At least for some individual pictures I fail to see how they differ from other nudes on commons that are considered "fine". So a bit more detailed reasoning in the deletion request and a link to relevant policies might help (the link to an older request for deletion however is not really helping as it is completely unclear to me how and why the reasoning there would apply here).
Kmhkmh (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Delete all the rest (exept Vulva Dettol 3). The name of the photographer does not matter at all. There are some high quality photos of him, that are not on this list, but what has been proposed for deletion here has no value whatsoever for scientific or other encyclopaedic purposes. The Wikimedia staff who selected the photos for this list for the deletion request have already thought carefully about why. Most of the images is just stuff he took for some private pleasure. Wikimedia commons is not meant to be a junk room. Few photos here on the list are of quality, but if the women pictured have not given us written consent for publication, we are not allowed to keep the photos. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Keep File:Breast.jpg is from a different Flickr account, and apparently was miscategorized as being by Klashorst (I have removed that category). It should not have been part of this mass deletion request. I would have said go ahead and delete this one too as the focus is rather poor, but it is IN USE in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Keep File:Gesluierd3.jpg. Kept in two previous deletion requests Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gesluierd3.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gesluierd3.jpg. Pose and eye contact shows the model is well aware of being photographed, and face deliberately masked, avoiding personality rights. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
  •  Keep For the sake of neutrality an encyclopedia must have : what proof do wa have of Peter Klashorst having shot pictures of underage girls ? Even if any, what proff do we have that one of these pics showcase an underage girl ? Third question : Klashorst has shot pictures of genitalia for years, how come he's suddenly under suspicion now and all of a sudden ? What proof do we have it's not a set operation ?

Besides all these questions : Most of these pics can fill the categories and are of usable quality for most in an illustrative standpoint. so why remove the usable ones, if not for suspicion of underage models, which is only a suspicion ?Jean-Mahmoud (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply

  •  Comment In this context, fundamental questions need to be discussed. We require consent from a minor to publish a photo in order to keep it, as well as from an adult. If someone has cut off the head of the person in the photo before uploading it, this does not release us from our obligation to respect personal rights. Even without a face, it is the body of a particular person who must consent to a photo of their body being published on the internet. Yes the photo of the naked woman with the black scarf over her face, is a work of art, but how do we know if it was uploaded with her consent? Remember that looking at these photos can affect one's hormones and thus alter one's judgement. Peter Klaashorst seems to have taken some pictures in a very private setting. Some women may not have known what he intended to do with the pictures, even if they have unknowingly agreed to be photographed in a private setting. It is the obligation of the photographer or uploader to provide proof of consent by asking the person to send an OTRS release form to us. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Comment Some statistics: Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst currently holds 91 files. Most of these photographs were proposed for deletion in this current request, even if some were kept in previous deletion requests. 68 of these photos are in use in dozens of Wikipedia language versions, some even as lead image. See e.g. Buttocks. Total usage currently amounts to 607 times. One more comment: I guess Klashorst himself consented the use of his own image in this file. --- Vysotsky (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Keep I'm tired of people seeing problems everywhere, especially when it comes to nudity or sexuality... And tired of arguing... But some comments :
    1. There's no reasonable aspect leading anyone to think that the models aren't adults or that they didn't give their consent.
    2. Files like File:Woman rubbing ice-cream on her shaved genitalia.jpg are totally off-topic when you consider the reasons givent to justify that DR! This is ridiculous...
    3. Something shows the kind of hypocrisy of this DR : File:Bedpeace2 cut.jpg only shows Peter Klashorst himself! "There is no proof that the people depicted in Klashorst's nude photographs were of age or consented to publication" ? Lol... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Comment: The images in this list should not be kept or deleted altogether. They must be considered one by one. Users who cast a "delete" or "keep" vote should please refer to one specific image and state the reasons they believe apply. It is not a correct way of reasoning to say that the reasons for deletion that apply to other images do not apply to a particular image. Of course, not every reason applies to every picture. Each of the images here has been proposed for deletion for a specific reason. The possible reasons are to be examined by us individually in each case.
  • Example: To say that the photo of Peter Klashorst shows someone of age is not an argument that the question of age need not be raised anywhere. There is this photo of a very young female File:Femalebody bottom nude.jpg. It is the only one in our stock of images that can be used to show the childlike state of the female external genital, although it is possible that she is a young adult who looks that way because of her individual physique and depilation. Please let us deal with the pictures one by one from top to bottom to avoid a chaotic discussion or that general judgements are made about all pictures that do not apply to all of them. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  • I assume that none of us has a sexophobic attitude. The issue here is the quality of the visual material, which images are suitable for use in an encyclopaedia for the transmission of knowledge, and which can only be used as wank templates. It is not our job to provide wank templates for readers. They can find enough of them anywhere. However, I do not see a problem with pictures that can illustrate a certain scientifically recorded content that we are writing about, having an eroticising effect. Users who want an image to be kept, should be able to say for what purpuse. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  • This is not how things work at Commons. The rules of the game are like this: if one thinks an image is not in line with the rules of Commons, one should give a particular reason why that image should not be here. It doesn't work the other way around. However, I am glad you indirectly admit that this multiple deletion request is just a wild shotgun approach. Vysotsky (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Keep all of them, per Vysotsky and TwoWings rationale. There is no evidence that any of the people depicted in the pictures are minor. Some of these people are clearly adults. One of the pictures depict Peter Klashorst himself. Many of the images are high quality pictures used in several WMF projects. The rationale in this DR is weak and fault, and we cannot delete a bulk of pictures based in it. This would start a very bad precedent.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  •  Keep conditionally. On further consideration I think this listing should be closed as kept - since the poorly curated nature of this wide-net deletion request has become clear (for example, while claiming to be for issues of consent, it includes a Klashorst self portrait, as well as a rather widely used photo that is not by Klashorst as all.) I doubt we'll get consensus on all these photos as a group. I therefore suggest closing this listing, without prejudice to relisting individual images or carefully selected small sets of images with similar concerns. Above I voted delete for 3 images as being of poor quality. I might support or at least not object to deletion of a smaller well selected subset of images in this request. But IMO this listing is too wide and sloppy. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per Infrogmation and others above. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Peter_Klashorst&oldid=818222628"