Talk:Tom of Finland

"Improbably large" considered POV

I would do due diligence before calling the penises of Tom of Finland's men to be "improbably large". In general, wikipedia editors have no clue on this matter.

Unless you have a WP:RS that says that, this is considered WP:OR.Smallman12q (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of Tom of Finland's works

One editor wants to add a link to a page containing Tom's works. However, he provides no information about their copyright status. The last time I checked, all the publications of Tom's works from which the pages have been scanned are actually copyrighted, and Tom's works are copyrighted by the Tom of Finland foundation, so their legal status is fishy at best. I'm in favour of removing the link.--Wormsie (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And you'd be correct in doing so. Benjiboi 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed pic.

My browser betrayed me as I was entering an edit summary for diff 234754463. So I'll explain here: The picture of ToF is, at that resolution, basically just a grey smear; most of the view of the house is blocked, and it isn't clear why the apearance of the house is important anyway. The real subject of the picture is Durk Dehner, who might be mighty pleased with himself, but isn't notable. —12.72.73.57 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is relevant to this article and as the President of the TOF foundation he certainly is a reasonable person to be included in the article. Banjeboi 12:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it´s not relevant... I'm removing it.190.191.5.214 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the only image we have of Finland and the president of the Tom of Finland foundation is also relevant here. -- Banjeboi 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider Dehner necessarily relevant, since this is not an article on the Tom of Finland foundation, but as the picture of Dehner contains the only picture the article has of Laaksonen, it should remain there for the moment, until or unless a better picture can be found. Born Gay (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The key problem with this argument is that photo of Laaksonen embedded in this file is protected by copyright (Robert Mapplethorpe's if I'm not mistaken). To use this file legitimately, we would have to remove the part that is actually relevant to the article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the article about the Tom of Finland Foundation. If the content grows into it's own article then the image can move there. To appease the fair use concern of the artwork within the image it may make sense to simply reference that work in the text. Another solution would be to crop out the artwork and find another image of Laaksonen. -- Banjeboi 14:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the Tom of Finland Foundation, which warrants only a brief mention in the article. It is most definitely not about the subject of this photo, who is (appropriately) not even mentioned in the article, and his name wouldn't appear on the page at all if not for the need to explain who the dude in the picture is. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and as such people seek information. This article contains everything wikipedia knows about the foundation, it certainly could have it's own article but until it does, this is where people looking for that information need to go. The lede should explian that among other impacts his legacy is supported by the Tom of Finland Foundation. The disputed image should likely be moved down to the legacy/impact section and content about the foundation added there. -- Banjeboi 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it directly: Whatshisname is not sufficiently notable to justify a photo of him in Wikipedia. Neither am I, and I'm guessing neither are you. Disappointing, perhaps, but we'll all get over it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. No, we do not remove images because we think the person isn't notable, images illustrate the article and this image is all about this subject. That "Whatshisname" is Finland's friend who co-founded the Tom of Finland Foundation with him; "Whatshisname" is still the president of that foundation which is internationally recognized and active. The caption now more fully explains the relevance of the image to the article as well. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about the president of the Tom of Finland Foundation. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems apparent to all. It is however an article about Tom of Finland and information about a foundation to house his art, co-founded by him with "Whatshisname" is logically part of this article. If we had a separate article about the foundation we would still have a summary paragraph about the foundation here. The image is a photo of Finland's friend and foundation co-founder, with an image of Finland in front of the foundation building. There may be a case for cropping the photo but not for removing it. -- Banjeboi 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's a case for removing it. You apparently have four different people expressing it, but you apparently don't want to hear it for some reason. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we did have an article about the TOF Foundation. What other article about a foundation features a portrait of the person in charge of it? Go through Category:Foundations by country and see if you can find any. It is not relevant information. For an article about a person, an image of that person is illustrative, because that is the subject. But for a foundation, neither the founder nor the house where its office is located is that foundation, so it doesn't illustrate the subject. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This boils down to we work with the images we have not the ones we wish we had. I think this does illustrate as images almost always provide more information than mere words do. On various subjects we include pictures of buildings, flyers, signs, crowd shots and indeed photos of associates, contemporaries and co-workers all in an effort to convey more the spirit of the subject. Articles grow organically as well. one section may balloon up awaiting the rest to expand. I think this may fit into that concept. Let the article grow or perhaps find other images that are so compelling we simply have to let this one go to make room. -- Banjeboi 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JasonAQuest that this is not an article about the Tom of Finland foundation. That people might come here looking for information specifically about the foundation is true, but that does not mean that this is what the article is or should be about. If there is a copyright problem, then the picture does need to go. Born Gay (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope the "under construction" tag added to the article does not indicate an attempt to rationalize the inclusion of an irrelevant photo by changing the subject of the article itself. I also disagree with changing this into a "Tom of Finland Foundation and its officers" article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like that hope was in vain. Benjiboi's contempt for others' POV and Wikipedia convention is becoming clearer. But loading the article with references to the foundation and shoehorning this guy into it doesn't make a photo of him any more illustrative of the actual subject of this article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. What a pile of bad faith. In the process of adding sourcing to understand how the foundation and his friend fit into things there is indeed sourced content the foundation that the two co-founded was the one thing the artist was most proud and the film that the foundation coordinated is what brought him to mainstream attention. And I've only just started. If you're unwilling to accept what reliable sources state you may just need to back off and let those willing to do the work do so. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a licence for you to do whatever you want and not be called out for it. I have done nothing to remove info about the Foundation (except where it was repeated). The only thing I have outright removed is the photo, which everyone involved but you feels does not substantially illustrate the subject of this article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The photo of Durk Dehner has multiple problems: It contains copyrighted material, it does not illustrate the subject of Tom of Finland, and it poses privacy issues because it depicts someone who is not independently notable. Multiple editors have expressed the opinion that it does not belong here. Editing the article to focus more on the TOF Foundation in a rather obvious effort to justify the photo's inclusion is in defiance of the prevailing opinion in this discussion. Please cease and desist in this crusade. Might I suggest some kind of third-party involvement? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion began sourced content explaining the relevance of the photo and his friend has been added. A quick look over the recent history here indicates I'm the sole editor actually adding sources and content to improve the article. It may make sense for you to chillax a bit and allow me to do so. Incidentally it's likely that Durk Dehner is notable although that's not a reason to include or disclude an image. -- Banjeboi 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He will never be the subject of this article, no matter how hard you want him to be, and no matter how hard you force the article to try to make it about him. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)