[[<joke image -'man.jpg' - deleted>|thumb|250px|Alternate 1 - An innocent man having his hat blown off. Huge, simply tremendous EV, very nice piece of art, illustrates the subject well. ]]
Reason
A beautiful image of cultural and historic value. Well known and pleasing to the eye. Good use in articles.
Support as nominator, Oppose Alternative --JordanContribs 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a large enough image, given the size and level of detail in the painting itself.--ragesoss (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Question How big is the real painting?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
39 1/4 x 20 5/8 inches, according to the Art Renewal Center (which is probably the source of the image, as well, although it's marked as unknown source)--ragesoss (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Weak support ...Which means that it has about a 1:2 ratio with the original. I'd like it to be bigger, but take it out of Good and Evil and it will do.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 18:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment--I'm wondering about the encyclopedic value of this image. It's use in Good and evil is kind of dubious, given that "good" and "innocence" are two distinct philosophical concepts and this is explicitly only one of them. Isn't there another image somewhere that illustrates "good" more directly? Chick Bowen 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Chick Bowen. Art needs to stand on it's own, these abstract concepts of "innocence" and "good" can not be used to add EV to it. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I does add a lot of EV to the otherwise unillustratable (?) article Innocence (the painting is named L'Innocence, for crying out loud), but unfortunately there is a problem with its placement in Good and Evil. Might I suggest removing it from that article? It might have more of a chance only in Innocence. But that's just my opinion. Good picture nonetheless. You can even see some of the canvas fibers. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Response The image has been removed from the article Good and Evil, as per apparent consensus. JordanContribs 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think it has good EV in Innocence. We'd be hard-pressed to come up with another image that illustrates a philosophical concept like that so well. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment I see a frantic looking woman stealing a lamb and a child, far from innocent. Thats the cool thing about art and abstract concepts: anything can be accurate as it is all up to the interpretation of the reader. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Rambling discussion on subjectivity and French grammar
::"Alas that such a travesty could be allowed to occurr unchecked. Oh, cruel fate!" That's the problem with subjectivity: it's all based on perception. However, allowing that the viewer believes that the picture represents innocence and not some jumped up kidnapper cum livestock thief, then it might indeed do a fair job of representing the concept of innocence. So, either the woman is running off with Mary's little lamb, or she's the anthropomorphic personification of a vaguely abstract virtue. But which? Now, that is the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.4.41.216 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha ha that was the funniest thing I've read at FPC in a long time! But really, I think the fact that it's named "L'Innocence" and not "Le Voleur de moutons" implies the meaning of the painting, but everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be "La Vouleuse d'un mouton et un enfant"?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 01:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Not if this "woman" is less innocent than even Uncle.Bungle suspected! Thegreenj 03:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Scandalous! Maybe she's a cannibal!? LOL :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me my previous comment. I made it whilst logged out. I am glad to see that my fellow Wikipedians do possess what might be termed a sense of humour. I was starting to get worried. However, I doubt that cannibalism is her plan... I suspect that Innocence is far from what her name implies. I am sure that she has ulterior motives. Likely, the child will be sold to an Eastern sweatshop, where she will make Nike shoes for the rest of her existence, and the lamb will suffer the same fate as most delectable-looking livestock. Rather unfortunate, if you ask me. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this page is supposed to be the home of serious, image related discussion. I suspect that we might get told off for this. Well, it was worth the laugh. And now, off to more serious matters... JordanContribs 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha yeah. I think this has been the longest and most pointless FPC conversation ever. We should get "Idiot Wikipedian" barnstars. :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't L'Innocence idiot in French? I'm not sure, this being the English wikipedia and all. In all seriousness, I apologize for kicking off such a disruption in the FPC process. I can say in my defense that the above banter demonstrates how there is too much room for interpretation to ever allow the image to fufill the accuracy requirement. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Not according to Babel Fish translator. Also, I don't think it was really your fault; I think the blame goes to certain idiot reviewers (i.e. me). Haha.
Ok... This is getting a bit too far. I'm a native french speaker. "Innocence" in french as different meanings: "a female name", "somebody that can't do any evil", "the state of being non guilty", "to be pure, angel-like, white (in the sense of spotless, pure) naive and gullible". The latter definition is only very rarely used as "idiot", as "innocence" is a name, but the adjective "innocent(e)" is used frequently in any of those 3 latter definitions. BTW it's not "La Vouleuse d'un mouton et un enfant" it should be "La voleuse d'un agneau et d'un enfant". "vouleuse" doesn't existe, capital letters are never used for a common name in french unless it's the first word of a sentence (even in a title) and as far as I know, this woman is not carrying a full grown sheep (mouton), she's carrying a lamb (agneau). PYMontpetit (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. That does complicate things. Je parle francais aussi. Well, even if we can't decide whether the image represents a virtue or an act of vice, at least we know what the title would be in French, were the title actually related to theft. Which it isn't. JordanContribs 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how voleuse became Vouleuse, but I suppose having a d' before each un makes sense. As for agneau and mouton, I just used the language from the previous comment. (J'ai étudié français depuis trois ans.)--HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ha, while we're at it, wouldn't that be "J'étudie français depuis trois ans", since depuis implies past action in the present tense? Thegreenj 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah....I'm going to stick to English now....--HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be "J'étudie le français depuis trois ans" PYMontpetit (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Je déteste la langue français maintenant. Est-ce que vous êtes heureux?--IciPourAider(parlez à moi)20:44, 30 Septembre 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think it meets the criteria Tokugawapants (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Question Just above the halfway mark (vertically) and immediately right of her left elbow, there's an odd paleness in the shadow that looks like a wear mark or something. Is this part of the painting or a problem in the reproduction or scan? Should it be fixed? Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert on art, but based on otheronlinecopies of the painting, it seems that the white streak is part of the original. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Very good EV., and ofcourse oppose alternative. — Nvineethtalk 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Excellent encyclopaedic value for the article "Innocence", but I am concerned that the image is unsourced on its description page at commons. Oppose Alternate 1 - everyone knows that a man with a black hat is never innocent. Melburnian (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Alternate 1 as per caption :) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Any Alternative 1 is unfortunately on the small side... -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Original - Excellent image and excellent EV, pedantic discussions of imagery and semiotics remind me of high schoolers in a basic ethics course (but kudos to those who use tongue-in-cheek humor!) — Noraad 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha now we can blame you next time we get off topic ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'd best watch out. If I'm not careful, this might devolve into a humorous conversation relation to various obscure and abstract ideas about art. I think that this should be avoided at all costs. Of course, if anyone wants to start up a similar conversation to the previous one, I'd be sure to oblige. JordanContribs 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
But you're such an expert in an intangible concept like "innocence" that you are qualified to evaluate the encyclopaedic value of this submission eh Noraad? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Very pretty picture. The artist has captured the essence of innocence very well. Priyananda (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see "very pretty" on the list of requirements for FPC... --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Bouguereau-Linnocence.jpgMER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
