Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blind man with a paralyzed man on his back

Blind man carrying a paralyzed man on his back

 * Reason:A photo from the Levant ca. 1889, It sheds light on the life of disabled people during that period of time.
 * Articles this image appears in: Disability removed by    Nezzadar   ☎   removed by Kaldari
 * Creator:Tancrède Dumas, Restoration by Banzoo


 * Support as nominator --Banzoo (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This, aside from being insulting to the disabled, his just about no EV on the one article it appears on. If you were to remove the image, the article might actually improve, as the image is distracting. The image also suffers from compostition issues, such as the fact that it is exceedingly blurry, and has no clear focal point at all. Is it the face of the paralyzed man, because that seems the crispest part, but it has blur too.  Nezzadar   ☎   22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think when you assert that by showing a picture of a disabled is "insulting to the disabled" people can be understood as an insulting suggestion by itself. It's somewhat surprising to see the article about disability avoiding to show any disabled person in photos. About the blur you are referring to, it's an albumen print, whose quality degrades over time. So I suppose for albumen prints that old, you would not expect better quality if not preserved correctly. --Banzoo (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get it do you? This image was designed to humiliate the disabled. Why else would they be in those poses, which are entirely un-normal. Much like the concept of "midget tossing" people tend to ignore the cruelty of something if it can be precieved as "funny." Want a picture of the disabled, get an image from the special olymics, they tend to be high quality, free licence, and depict people in normal pursuits, not this. To imply that I am being insensitive is, for lack of a better term, shallow and stupid. You offend me by both submitting this and questioning my intentions. I don't stand idle when people are being attacked, and I see this image as a blatant attack on the disabled.  Nezzadar   ☎   04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a photo that can be put on disabled that isn't morally wrong.
 * I didn't expect to be offended that many times in one discussion, for this reason, I would prefer to continue a less aggressive discussion in a more civilized way. Thank you for calling me "shallow and stupid", this shows clearly how you "don't stand when people are being attacked" excluding when you are the one attacking people! You think it's all right for you to question my intentions, while showing your one sided intentions as the only ones that can hold? Anyway, the paralympics is a good picture, yet it doesn't provide a complete picture behind the life of the disabled, throughout history and different cultures. I don't think you understand the photo, they were not just posing for the photo, rather they live and take care of each other this way. I do not believe that anyone with clear mind would perceive such photo as "funny". Thank you. --Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See my posting below in "update."  Nezzadar   ☎   07:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you include your signature in the caption of the photo you posted, so that it wont be understood as it is being submitted by the nominator.--Banzoo (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No need, I said it was not for voting, and said that I posted the image. That is all that is required.  Nezzadar   ☎   16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a signature should be present (I added it manually), especially when you are including judgments and your own personal opinion in the caption.--Banzoo (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, encyclopedic value concerns. –blurpeace (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible if you elaborate more those concerns?--Banzoo (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova 339 02:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The file is only used in one article, with no direct relevance to the text. –blurpeace (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The image is very disconnected from the article. On the other hand I want to make some observations that should not be taken into account because I am not an expert. I will say them with the hope of catching an expert's attention willing to do/say something. I think that the potential of the picture is very underused. Clearly it shows an interesting symbiotic colaboration between a blind (so they say) person and a paralytic (they say so) person. There are other things that I believe I can see there too. The one that is blind has also polydactyly (although not well shown) some of the fingers are clearly over grown and for sure that has some technical name and hopefully an article in wikipedia. The guy that is paralytic has the facial features of a person with William's syndrome (here the expert has to say if it is really true). Of course, if the picture is going to be added to the William's syndrome article (which needs images) it better be a crop showing only the face of the guy that is paralytic. If it is going to show polydactyly it better be a crop of the hand of the guy that is blind. All of this only if a person really knowing does it. For the moment I support the oppose since I also think the article in which it is right now doesn't need this image right now. Of course, some editing of the article can solve that. ;)   Franklin.vp   23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Why was the albumen print grayscaled? Also, the edit notes are insufficient.
 * It's not a color photograph, there is no relevant reason to keep the original tone. How much details should be included in the edit notes? Including the original photo is not enough for comparison? I would value your comments, as I am not an expert like you in restoring old photographs.--Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tancrède Dumas worked in albumen; another medium that was in popular use during the same time was glass plate photography. The latter is naturally grayscaled so absolutely desaturating a Dumas could mislead casual viewers about which medium this is.  I've had better results hand-adjusting the colors and supplementing that with partial desaturation.  Viewers usually react better when a little warmth remains in the tone--more humanizing--even if on pure technicals your decision holds together.  If you've saved an intermediate edit before the grayscaling and histogram changes then I'd be glad to give it a look.  And regarding edit notes, the following is an example.  Durova  340 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully restored version of File:Kenyon Cox nude study.jpg. Cropped. Dirt, stains, and smudges removed. Variances in brightness and saturation corrected. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced. See also File:Kenyon Cox nude study1.tif (partial restoration) and File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.tif (full restoration, uncompressed).
 * Oops! I didn't know that, I'm pretty much a beginner apparently, I started the restoration after grayscaling the image :-(. Is there no way to recapture the original tone from the actual restored image? Do you have some wiki-page with some guidelines on restoring old photographs, that would help beginners like me.--Banzoo (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a little starter guide at Wikiversity a while ago. If you'd like coaching email me for my Skype ID.  It's a good client for collaborative media editing.  Durova  342 02:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update This image is no longer in any articles. An image of the Paralympics has been installed in its place as it adds more EV to the article.  Nezzadar   ☎   05:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the article can have place for both photos. Or is it irrelevant to show anything in the era before the paralymics.--Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only place this could possibly have a legitimate contribution would be an article on the historic abuse of the disabled. This image shows nothing else. An image like this has no place outside of /b/. Yes I said it. It is of that low caliber of useless crud. I wasn't going to be that explicit, but since you keep pushing, I might as well speak my mind.  Nezzadar   ☎   07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also there is nothing natural about the photo. It is clear from the composition that the photo is staged. This raises serious concerns about what actually occurs off camera.  Nezzadar   ☎   07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not good manners in the middle of a nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On Nezzadar's Behavior I have to say I am strongly against Nezzadar's behavior here. Why should it be introduced so much prejudice in the evaluation of a picture? Is it possible avoid involving subjective perceptions in such a strong manner? In my opinion this picture is not offensive in the least of the ways. It shows disable men helping each other. I don't see much difference between this an a picture of a blind man and a Lazarillo dog. I am not claiming on the other hand the picture having value. I simply don't have opinion about this. For eons disable people have used aides in many ingenious ways, dogs, walking sticks, wheel chairs, Lazarillos... It is actually nice that in this case what is happening is collaboration between two human beings. Somethings that is needing this discussion. I encourage the next reviewers to try to avoid seeing the picture in the eyes of the previous discussion.  Franklin.vp   13:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. It's a historical image. There are many articles and images with offensive subjects to modern society, but that should have absolutely no bearing on featuring them (or not) for their historic value, because we recognise that standards have changed. It's like not allowing education about the Holocaust because genocide is offensive, or Apartheid becuse racism is offensive. It happened, it was documented, and we can learn from it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to put the image back in, that's fine, that's what consensus is for, but at least address my comment that it should be put in context, i.e. in a section on the history of the quality of life of disabled people. I might have acted harshly, but it is out of a genuine belief that this image is staged and is in bad taste.  Nezzadar   ☎   16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like it already is back in. I completely agree that it should in better context in the article though, but I don't think that anyone is going to assume that it's how disabled people are typically treated in this age. Having said that, I don't know for sure if that isn't realistic in many other parts of the world, where there are no social services and families can't or won't look after their disabled. Remember that Wiki should encompass a world-view, not just disability as it relates to prosperous western countries. What makes you so certain that it was staged? It might be a posed portrait, but there's nothing to suggest that they took two different disabled people and pretended it was their reality... It's possible, but you're making a pretty rash assumption without any basis IMO. The fact that the person on the right is held in position by a strap suggests that he was carried in that way, whether by the blind man, or someone else. It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that perhaps the blind person was directed by the physically disabled but alert and well-sighted person. That doesn't sound offensive to me, it sounds like a cooperation. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Historic depictions of difficult subjects are often ambiguous. We don't really know whether Dumas's intention was exploitive or sympathetic and the intentions of the subjects are also unknown.  The actual attitudes could be surprising to twenty-first century sensibilities, but parallel examples would be digressive.  It might possibly be that Banzoo's decision to grayscale the image--which is technically valid but conveys emotional connotations of coldness--inadvertently touched off a strong reaction in one reviewer.  Let's chalk that up to the power of photography in the hands of a master artist.  Restoration is a difficult task and the learning curve can be bumpy. as I well know  Durova  342 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I just don't see any EV here. What exactly is it illustrating? If it's just illustrating disabled people, we have plenty of images on Commons that would work better (i.e. are more up to date). There's nothing in the article discussing life for disabled people in the 1800s, or anything related to this image specifically. Without better context, the use of the image in this article is also a bit shocking. It would be like using an image of concentration camp victims as a generic illustration for the article Jewish people. Yes, they are Jewish, but we should use more generic images to illustrate generic topics, not the most extreme images available. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the poor use of the image in the article. Now (and please read my first post above not to have to repeat it here) there are reasons why this image is quite interesting. And just removing it is a loss. It would be better to expand the article instead and also use the image in more places, if valid. The point in which I disagree with you is in the unhappy example of the concentration camp. In this picture these two men are not morally, or physically degraded (at least not beyond their own medical conditions). Well, I am wrong. There is one exception. They are wearing rags but well, the image is old and they are from Lebanon (I guess, or some other poor country), although even this kind of misfortune (poverty) can be seen even in richer countries. My goal is not to make you change the nature of your vote, which I think it is essentially correct, but to change a little the reasons for more constructive ones.  Franklin.vp   19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If a section on "history" or "disability and poverty" were added to the article, I would probably change my vote, but as it stands, I just don't think the image is appropriate in the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Just...no. Per Nezzadar. -- mcshadypl T C  21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's fair for me to place this vote. I am offended by the picture and the fact that this is being used to represent disabled individuals, so I can't give this a just vote in regards to its EV and quality. I just wish that the article did not use such a crude picture. -- mcshadypl T C  06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am glad that you are voting (or not voting as the case may be) with your head and not your heart. The argument that there is insufficient EV as it stands in the disability article is certainly very fair, but whether you take offence should have no bearing on the nomination. IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A shame we don't have an appropriate article for this; the photographer's article is just a stub. The elephant in the room here is our systemic bias failing to provide the proper context for images like these. The sort of collaboration depicted here was far from uncommon and certainly not "staged", as some here have suggested. Anyone who has travelled in north Africa or the Middle East will be familiar with the very different cultural attitudes to disability there. This is an important image with huge value, just not of any value to en:wikipedia :-( --mikaultalk 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also rather surprised to see arguments that this photo lacks EV. To my eye, this photo illustrates the utter marginalisation of disabled people in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think few people are arguing that the photo itself lacks EV, it's more that it lacks EV because it isn't integrated into the article particularly well and therefore lacks the context that it needs to add to the article. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Diliff is correct. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Diliff also, but then the question is 'why is this image being singled out for this offence, when so many others with the same issue pass unnoticed?' Or if it is noticed we see things like 'will have sufficient EV when the article is expanded'. --jjron (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to add fuel to the fire, but this time an admin removed the image. I guess that the two options are to level the same comments placed on me onto an admin or declare the nomination moot until such a time as the image gains a place in an article.  Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I would tend to suggest that the reason given in the edit summary speaks again of a personal value judgement on this image, to quote: "removing image - it has no context in the article". While this may be true, in short, how does the wheelchair basketball photo have any more context than this? It doesn't, yet that one was left there. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the wheelchair basketball image does have more context, it was just posted at the wrong section (now fixed) and that's not the case for this one. The proper place might be a history section, except it has a quite localised social/cultural context possibly beyond the reach of the article; the only historical thing here is the fact that it's an old photo. It's a tough one to place, basically, in an article drawn from an explicitly modern western perspective. OTOH the subtext of your question provokes the response, because some people are disturbed and/or offended by graphic depictions of human deformity. How/if/whether this should be looked at from a WP:CENSORED angle is probably a bit much to debate (even) here, but there are similarities. --mikaultalk 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, has more context where you've moved it now, but not where it was left. FWIW I have actually seen other images similar to this in the past, and suspect, at least in a historical context, it's not as unusual or staged as many seem to think. Yes, that answer would seem to be correct - my question was somewhat rhetorical (in view of comments already posted here) - but my basic point was that in terms of an FPC candidacy this has hardly had an unbiased run. --jjron (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An admin is just a Wikipedian with access to restricted technical features, which means that his/her edits are not necessarily more or less valuable than the contributions of others.--Banzoo (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Request suspension until the article is improved with a history section. --Banzoo (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you intend to do so in the next few days that would probably be worthwhile. If you mean suspend until someone just happens to come along and improve it, then not. --jjron (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO it probably makes more sense to close this with no consensus for now, especially since there were no support votes other than the nominator. A new nomination will clean the slate once the EV is improved, unless, as Jjron says, you intend to do it immediately. It might take some collaboration and time to bring it up to speed though. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, so I'm not sure how long will it take to do a relevant research on this subject. I also agree with Diliff that this task requires collaboration. Are there any rules on how long a suspension would last?--Banzoo (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There aren't really any rules AFAIK. Nominations have been left suspended for months in the past, although I don't really see any good reason why. Unless you want to keep the existing votes (there are no supporting votes other than the nominator, most of the opposition was a bit irrational, leaving few genuine relevant votes), it just seems far cleaner to create a new nom once the EV is improved. You can link to the previous nomination to provide background. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the other options if we wont suspend the nomination? Should we simply wait until voting period is over?--Banzoo (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could just let it expire as per normal and it would not be promoted. Then you are free to re-nominate it when circumstances change (normally we discourage re-nomination shortly after, but for this one, it probably has a good case for re-nomination with more EV. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against diving in and creating an appropriate section at disability. AFAICS this will require a good deal of research, possibly an entirely new article, as there's no obvious place for it in current article mainspace. I'd suggest Social model of disability might be a better place to start. Certainly the right way to go about this is to find collaborative editors there by posting the image on the talk page, per WP:PRESERVE. Good luck! --mikaultalk 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just put a bold 'Withdrawn' with your sig if you want to pull it early. --jjron (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI - I found a book that apparently discusses these pictures by Dumas through some internet searching. (See Focus East: early photography in the Near East (1839-1885)‎ - Page 107 - Nissan Perez - Photography - 1988 - 256 pages - ISBN 0810909243, 9780810909243 - Link to book) Unfortunately the snippet view from Google books provides only a hint about the (perhaps explotative) history of these pictures ("A second image by Dumas, which he titled Aveugl Portent un Paralitique (sic) (fig. 90), is a straight studio photograph featuring freaks and circus-type..."). If someone could check this book out, they may be able to find out the history of this picture and related pictures. Remember (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest of the paragraph: "In this Dumas illustrates the cliche of the time that equated the Orient with all sorts of degenerations, both mental and physical. The photograph reinforced the European notion that the Orient was a zoo; how superior a Westerner could feel confronting such a scene." I question this opinion of the author especially when French poet Jean-Pierre Claris de Florian had a fable with a story of a blind and a paralyzed helping each others, or this drawing by Auguste-Barthélemy Glaize. No "degeneration" nor a "superiority" in this fable, but only a moral. I wonder if the book's author is familiar with the work of these French artists before giving this assumption.--Banzoo (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. If I had the time or the will to do so I could find you a dozen wonderful academic papers with my access to JSTOR. However I have an academic paper of my own due tuesday, and as such you are on your own. Jjron's comment still stands though. Unless you can get the context in quickly, I suggest that for now you move this to suspended nominations or withdraw it.  Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well at least he is doing something productive. Even if the nomination is withdrawn or suspended. Editors can find here some references. Why you can't behave nicely. A good number of wikipedians are also academics themselves and even having to do research take some time to edit wikipedia. If you have to write a paper do so and come back afterward to illuminate wikipedia with what becomes known of your results. But even when you are busy you find some time to come and fill every single nomination with nothing (scroll dawn and you will see that the number is not small). If you have nothing to say listen, and listening you always learn something. You are trying too hard showing us all your ignorant side and if you keep doing it we are going to get convinced that is your true nature. Wikipedia is a place of learning. Look how many interesting things we have learned with this unsuccessful nomination: About a photographer, about a poet, about medicine, about costumes. Let us all wake up next day willing to listen and to learn from the other. It won't make us less.   Franklin.vp   01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Sorry. moving to the appropriate talk page.   Franklin.vp   03:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if the comment is going to stand, I might as well respond to it in the clearest way possible. Shut up. If you took the time to read my comments, you would realize that I don't contribute "nothing." I see that as a personal slight, and have made it clear that I do not respond kindly to those. Your comment is summarily discounted, and I see no need to ever communicate with you again. Please, for both our sakes, do not ever try to speak to me again. It will not end pleasantly. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to refrain from further discussions when angered. –blurpeace (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's maintain decorum here, please. Durova  351 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. Sorry to those caught up in this and not involved. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Zoo Fari Boo!  05:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)