Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alison Bechdel

Alison Bechdel edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 00:49:34 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image of a notable contemporary woman artist. Probably the best of the "Genius Award" images I've seen
Articles in which this image appears: Alison Bechdel +1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Riccardo De Luca for the MacArthur Foundation

Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best angle, which may also give an impression it's a man and not woman. Brandmeister^talk 09:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon? I have not had difficulty seeing that she is a woman... that she does not conform with the common ideal of femininity is not really grounds to oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, but since it's basically a profile, only half of her face is shown and eyes are obscured. Brandmeister^talk 12:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - But don't judge it like you would judge a lead image. A lead image would be an identifying image, used because it best describes what she looks like. This image is used further down in the article to show her working - an action shot if you will. Given that it's already established what she looks like, it's not as important that we can't see her face well. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Frankly, I don't think this is the spirit of WP:WIAFP, particularly point 3, unlike something like this or this. A featurable image of a person should also identify her/him and deserves the lead, but as you noted this one is placed somewhere below. Clicking the article in search of another image is not the best option, I think. Brandmeister^talk 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Not every featured image has to be the lead image, particularly when the lead image is unable to show an important aspect of the subject and actually I think there are plenty of examples of featured pictures that are not lead images. For some subjects, being the lead image is important, for others, it's not. For example, an action shot of a sportsperson would be unlikely to be the lead image because a regular head shot portrait would make a better lead image. It may be that they're not easily identifiable in the action shot too but that doesn't necessarily take away from what the photo is intended to show. Likewise, it would be difficult to get a good regular head portrait that also shows them doing what they are famous for. A 'lead image' and an 'action shot' are very difficult kinds of photos and rarely the two shall meet. I don't think that makes either ineligible. You just need consider the purpose of the image and make allowances for it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think Brandmeister's point was that the angle doesn't help with identification, but if we judge the image as it relates to the article (and we should), then it's fairly clear that she's a woman. The nominated image appears some way down the article, by which stage it's obvious. Besides, perhaps the name article's title, "Alison Bechdel" gives it away! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Brandmeister. (And from this vantage point, the subject does appear rather androgynous.) Sca (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read Crisco and my replies to Brandmeister though? I feel like we comprehensively responded to his objection(s) which, if you choose to use 'per Brandmeister', seems to be ignored. In short: I don't think you need to see her face for this to be a valid illustration of her with her work, and yes she appears slightly androgynous but so be it, if that's how she looks then that's how she looks, surely? 22:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Preceding edit added by Diliff — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Diliff; this here is an action shot, showing the cartoonist at work, drawing. To do so, there must be compromises. If she's actually drawing, she needs to face the canvas; otherwise it's very likely that she'd have made errors. If the camera were behind here, we'd get nothing but the back of her head (which would be compositionally poor). If the camera was over the canvas, then we'd get nothing of the work herself. The old self-portrait genre where painters held their brushes and looked forward while dabbing at the canvas just doesn't work in real life. As for the comments on her physical appearance, I'd have thought that we were all above that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{Androgynous is not a pejorative term.}

^{As an ex-newspaper ed, I'd have to say that, since this "action shot" illustrates an article about the cartoonist, the subject of the pic should be identifiable. (Just an opinion.) Sca (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Androgynous is in itself not a pejorative term, but one might read a bit further into it when the subject is a lesbian, and somewhat stereotypically so, based on appearances. It's not difficult to interpret it as "for a woman, she doesn't look very feminine". I'm not suggesting that is what you you were saying, I'm just making the point that describing a lesbian as androgynous as part of your reasoning for an oppose could be seen to be a bit inflammatory and give people the impression that you're being judgemental about her appearance and/or her sexuality. The equivalent might be to point out that a gay man happens to look effeminate. Yes, some gay men look effeminate and some gay women look androgynous. Whether we're confused about if they're male or female isn't really the point. The point is, that's how they look. It's not as though this image misrepresents her appearance.

Also, if you want to compare it to a journalistic piece, I think the article probably more closely resembles a National Geographic or Time feature than a newspaper article. A typical newspaper article would have just a single photo to work with, whereas a Time magazine feature would typically have many images illustrating not just what she looks like (a portrait), but also photos of her in her environment, which gives you scope to go beyond mere identification and into more artistic and expressive photography. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, I understand your rationale re sexual orientation, etc., but would suggest that nowadays we've moved beyond physical stereotypes. (As the sexual orientation entry notes, "an individual homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual person may be masculine, feminine, or androgynous....")

Indeed I was not attempting to characterize Ms. Bechdel in any adverse manner; I was simply saying that, based on the visual information presented by this photo, the gender of the subject was not readily apparent (as Brandmeister had noted). As a wordsmith by trade, I stoutly maintain that "androgynous" is not pejorative; that some may take it as such merely reflects personal or cultural assumptions about gender-specific physiognomies.

BTW, many newspaper articles are illustrated by more than one photo. However, if only one photo is to be used in this case, it would be quite simple to pose one adequately depicting both the cartoonist's style and the face of the cartoonist. Faces are of prime importance in conveying visual information about the subjects of feature stories, articles and profiles, regardless of the person's field – or, needless to say, gender. Sca (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any individual person of any sexual orientation could appear masculine, feminine or androgynous. My point was just that a stereotype of male and female homosexuals does exist, rightly or wrongly, and Alison's physical appearance does lean towards androgynous/masculine IMO, which is the 'stereotypical' lesbian. I think we agree that it's irrelevant how masculine or androgynous she looks though, or whether she might be misidentified as a male. If it is indeed the case that she could be misidentified, it's simply because of how she actually looks, not because of how this image portrays her. But again, if we mistake her for a man, so what? Does it change anything? This image exists in an article about her, not in isolation. If, after landing on her article page, reading the title, seeing the female gender pronouns and reading about her life, we still can't identify her as female, that's not a problem with the image, it's a problem with us. ;-)

And yes, many newspaper articles are illustrated by more than one image, but if they are, do you really think they all have to identify the person equally well?

^{No. Sca (talk)}

Wouldn't it be more common that as long as at least one of the numerous photos identifies the subject, it's increasingly less important that the rest do too?

^{Yes. Sca (talk)}

There's no point considering a hypothetical of what we would do if only one image is to be used. We have more than one image in the article and we have no restriction on how many we can use. Given that the article already contains an identifying image in the infobox, I would argue that the subsequent images don't share the burden of identifying her. They are free to have more expressive or interesting compositions, such as the one we're discussing now. I still think the analogy of the Time magazine feature is a better way to consider a Wikipedia article on a person than a newspaper article. Obviously the text of a Wikipedia is written very differently to either, but the scope for photography shares a lot in common with Time magazine. Anyway, enough debate. If I still haven't convinced you, I'll stand down. :-) My intention is merely to engage, not to upset. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not upset. Nuff said. Sca (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Just echoing Diliff's thoughts on the term "Androgynous". Making comments on an individual's personal appearance in the midst of an oppose !vote suggests that said appearance is part of the basis of an oppose (even if that's not how the writer intended it), and thus comes across as akin to slighting the individual's personal appearance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! Descriptive, not pejorative. (Sorry, but I think it's your perception that makes it pejorative.) Sca (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That being...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure our perception does factor into it, but likewise, I think it's impossible to separate a 'descriptive' statement from an intention, perceived or otherwise. Nobody makes random statements about someone's appearance without meaning something by it. Neither of us are assuming bad faith and accusing you of homophobia or anything of that sort, but we are questioning the relevance of mentioning androgyny, given that sexuality and the judgements that tend to come with it can be a bit of a tinderbox issue. Descriptive would be perfectly reasonable if someone asked you how you would describe her appearance, but that isn't really the purpose of the nomination. Oops, I said I was going to stand down. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gray is neither black nor white. Nuff said. Sca (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurred and hazy.-Alborzagros (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we looking at the same picture? There is no blur (there is some noise, but no blur), and you couldn't get much more contrast without making the image look overprocessed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any blur either. The image is in focus and sharp. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action shot of the artist at work. The fact that Bechdel is androgynous looking is not a valid reason to object to featured picture status! I find the arguments above to be extremely strange. The purpose of the image is to illustrate the article by showing you Alison Bechdel at work, not to prove to you that Alison Bechdel is a woman. I really can't see how her degree of feminine appearance bears on the status of the image. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent and unusual photo emphasizing certain similarities between the artist and her life sized subject. The outstretched arms and touching hands, the similarities of hair styles and the overall connotations of the photo bring it to a very high quality level. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - even if I agree she looks like man, but then we will not have issues with her as a Picture of the Day...Like poor Michelle. And I have an userbox androgynous online, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am completely and totally confused as to why her physical presentation is even being discussed. It is a photograph illustrating an artist at work. No where in the guidelines posted Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria does it state that a photograph of a person must be identifiably masculine, feminine, or even of that person. In particular, it says "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" and this "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." As the article is about an artist, she and her work together are what make her a noteworthy person. Thus an image of her work is highly informative and would be whether she was in the picture or not in it at all. Would there be objection if "David" were used as an image to illustrate Michelangelo? Oh Wait! he is Michelangelo. SusunW (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo, great artist. (And I do have a conflict of interest as an androgynous genderfluid person myself. ;-) Missvain (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My original comment has been misunderstood by many. I apologize for not expressing myself with sufficient clarity. Because I've been criticized here, let me make the following points:

I was simply agreeing with Brandmeister's observation that, due in part to the angle of the photo, the subject's gender was not readily apparent.
In saying "rather androgynous," I was not making a pejorative comment about the subject's personal appearance or, by implication, putative sexual orientation.
Nor was my opposition to the photo based on the subject's supposed personal attributes.
Rather, my opposition was technical – based on the awkward angle of the photo with regard to the person pictured, particularly her face.
I myself am not homophobic. I believe widespread oppression of LGBT people is a major failing of U.S. society – and one that should be ameliorated, and hopefully corrected, by legislation to "add the words" to Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to corresponding state laws, including Idaho Title 67, Chapter 59, Section 67-5909.

(Disclosure: This user is a former intake officer for the Idaho Human Rights Commission.)

Sca (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining yourself a bit further. It would have been helpful had we not ventured into the area of physical appearances at all, but too late now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, the fact that the face of the artist is not showing is irrelevant. The artist is famous because art is produced. The picture shows an artist creating art. No one is famous because of their gender, they are famous because of something they do. All of the comments regarding gender are off-subject, IMO. Does the picture represent what the subject is famous for. Yes. Is it an interesting photo? Yes. Would seeing the artist's face in any way communicate that the artist is able to produce art? No. Would identifying the gender in any way change the ability to create art? No. Is it necessary to see the artist to know the work of the artist is theirs? No - case in point "David", "Starry Night", "The Scream" -- your mind just said Michelangelo, Van Gogh, Munch. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure that I agree with the face of the artist is not showing is irrelevant (what Michelangelo, Van Gogh, Munch?). It is rather relevant, BUT - THIS nomination does shows the face, from side-face, profile. And it is mirroring the face drawn by the artist, also side-face - in a rather delightful ballet of lines and forms, if anyone noticed that one. Also her hand drawing echoes the depicted in the picture, an other finesse. Her left arm is similar to the one depicted, kept in angle. So all this, I think is mostly what makes this picture a good photo. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; a big +1 to SusunW's comments, too. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mssemantics (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture is effective in conveying an impression of the subject, both in clearly showing her as a working artist, and in showing the resemblance between the artist and the figure the artist is drawing. Whether or not the picture shows a conventional gender appearance seems relevant only insofar as it might be different from the subject's usual preferred public presentation. In this case, her appearance in the photo seems to me perfectly in line with her usual public presentation, so should be a point favoring rather than opposing the use of this image. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why is being able to identify a person conclusively on their Wikipedia page a necessity? This image is composed interestingly and has a compelling creator-composition theme. (In the interest of the Bechdel Test, I note that despite my masculine handle, I am cis female.) Gus andrews (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cullen328. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree with Gus andrews that the image is interesting and has a compelling theme. Also, anyone acquainted with Bechdel's work will recognize her and her distinctive style - those not yet familiar will get a neat intro with this image. Sportlac (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just some clarification as to why the !vote above was stricken: it is FPC policy that !votes from editors with fewer than a hundred edits and whose accounts are newer than 25 days cannot be counted. We do welcome, however, all editors to comment on the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and then we had canvassing. Samsara 01:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been advertised somewhere? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few people with a focus on women on Wikipedia have tweeted it, but none of the tweets explicitly said "Vote to support this!" One was more or less "When Alison Bechdel is nominated at FPC" (when both oppose !votes above were the only ones on the page, aside from my nomination support) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - But when you tweet about a controversial nomination to a partisan crowd, it's implicit that you'll be getting partisan visitors to that nomination. There's no need to be explicit to get the desired result... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]