User talk:Mike33/admins are right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chav ImagesforDeletion

August 9

• (diff) (hist) . . Chav‎ 13:01 . . User:Secretlondon (Talk | contribs) (Remove photographs which are up for deletion - WHAT ON EARTH WERE YOU THINKING OF? This is an encyclopedia. we do not want candid camera photographs of derogatory stereotypes)

Thank you for looking at the images that were added to the above site. You recomended them for Fast Delete, so they are gone now.

I do however, take exception to the comment(above) that followed your removal of the images.

• "WHAT ON EARTH WERE YOU THINKING OF?" I am not some kind of naughty child, who does reckless things on the spur of the moment. Everything, I do is given consideration and thought. Indeed the images had to be cropped and RGB changes made to them. The photographs were carefully considered, which brings me to.....

• "This is an encyclopedia." Yes, I understand that. Throughout there history encyclopedias have been illustrated, to give the reader a physical idea of the concepts explained in the written form. Did you mean that my WP:NPOV was at fault? Do you understand me to be a modern day Leni Riefenstahl? Capturing images, that do not portray actual living human beings who fit into the definition as explained in the article. The article also goes someway to define the sterotypes involved. The pictures were illustrative.

• "We (Sic) do not want candid camera photographs of derogatory stereotypes" Exactly, who is we? Did you actually look at the pictures? What part of them makes you feel uneasy about them? The photographs were posed close up photographs, obviously taken with the permission of the people involved. They were not blurry, out of focus, behind net curtain pictures. There are plenty of those kind of pictures on some sites devoted to ridiculing and enshrining the myths about "alternative young people".

As, per derogatory stereotypes; there is some debate whether a not many or at least some of the "alternative young people" describe themselves as a self moniker as Chav, Ned (Scottish) or Scally. To be told that by posting the photographs (you seriously underestimate my feelings towards those "alternative young people") I was merely perpetuating a notion of the youth that would render the complete article WP:POV, does not take into account my complete neutrality.

I have been told today that my work was Disparaging, using stereotypes and that the use of the word Chav was both racist / derogatory by User:BigDT. Why somebody from the United States should believe that about me, simply based on a small listing in IfD is beyond me. Do they not have access to Wikidictionary or Wikipedia in the US? Completely absurd. Perhaps some editors should spend more time looking at the broader picture, than making snap decisions based on their own definitions of policy, or where policy is absolute not seeking to find out if their initial reaction is justified. Mike33 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They were nominated for normal image deletion, not speedy deletion. I doubt very much that they posed knowing that they were being used to illustrate a derogatory stereotype in an international online encyclopedia. Chav is not a neutral subculture on a par with goth etc, it is a term used to describe working class youth from outside. No-one self defines as one. Secretlondon 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank Your For your reply. The Human Rights Act (1998) hasn't yet been tested in relation to still photography. UK law as such, does neither allow nor disallow most photographs (exceptions are sexual or to do with children) being taken whether or not the participant wanted the photograph taking or not. Digital Photography allows everybody to see a thumbnail of the image taken moments ago.

Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of good or bad taste (notice how I don't use the word WE); there are many articles about individuals who have juped subjects for private gain Bum fights etc. When I take photographs, they are always done with permission, if it involves individual people or groups. Without permission, it is more than likely, that ones camera would be broken into pieces within seconds of taking Candid Camera type shots.

Whether or not any of my subjects would describe themselves as being Chavs is beside the point (if you do have a point?). The images matched the descriptions in the article. Will you remove Image:Chav.jpg

because it depicts (albeit in cartoon fashion) a "British Chav"? Other editors (eg: BigDT) use guidance from native speaking editors when it comes to Attack words. Chav is not the same as Pikey, Nigger, Coon or Paki. For the most part, (particulary in UK gay culture), Chav or in the north Scally is self descriptive of working class guys who dress in sportswear. Perhaps you don't come into contact with many young people, Perhaps you think that The International will redefine notions of class and youthful decadency, Perhaps you beleive that youth culture should be looked at historically 20 years later (punks, rudeboys, etc.). I don't know.

As Per, Speedy delete, the moment you classed it as Attack - the picture were doomed, as well you know. I haven't been on Wikipedia very long, but I always presumed there was more than one voice in the WE. Mike33 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)