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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.45.118 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2009

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)

If Wikipedia can teach us anything it is that no one is an island and everything is ultimately connected to everything else. Readers searching for information on either the foundation or Dehner would logically be led here as this is the only articles that have information on these subjects presented with due weight. A good or even featured article would certainly contain this information and possibly the image that seems to cause so much concern. It may not have occurred but just maybe the foundation owns the artwork, I don't know but neither am I in a rush to judge that which I do not fully understand. In digging through and adding sourced content it was fairly clear both were important to the subject of the article. Dehner, by the way, seems to be an expert on Tom's artwork as well as a pioneer in the leather subculture that was important to them both. I go where the sources lead. -- Banjeboi 14:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Metaphysical babble notwithstanding, he is not the subject of this article, and a photo of him adds nothing to one's understanding of the actual subject of this article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I obviously disagree. Please also refrain from characterizing my attempt to explain my logic as babble. -- Banjeboi 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Readers searching for information on either the foundation or Dehner would logically be led here as this is the only articles that have information on these subjects presented with due weight." I can only say again that the fact that people might come here looking for this particular information isn't a good reason for the article to veer away from its main subject. Born Gay (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't veer and I don't think we are. A GA or FA article would have at least this much information if not more. I'm working from early life on down and I think as we get into the 1980s and 1990s much of this can be merged as seen in context of a continuum of his career and legacy. The foundation dovetails with his sex-positive ethos, they seem to continue the transformative work he started. I'm still sorting through the 1950s and 1960s. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So rather than writing an article about Tom of Finland, you're synthesizing an essay expressing your admiration of his "transformative work", and placing it in the context of the much larger movement of which he is simply a part. How very original. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

It's quite inappropriate to illustrate this page with one of Tom of Finland's orgy pictures. I can see that certain editors might have reasons for insisting on placing images like that in the lead of the article, but they clearly don't serve any encyclopedic purpose. None of Tom of Finland's pictures of men engaging in sexual activity show us anything directly about him, and the page is meant to be about him. I have restored the more tasteful image that was there previously. If no picture of Finland himself is available, a picture of his work room is the best thing we can do to identify him. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Porno pic

1. No other WP uses it.
2. It's hardly worthy in terms of artistic worth.
3. It's just a bit beyond the pale when children can access the article freely.

Doctrine of least astonishment? Tony (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really apply here. NOTCENSORED applies when the most valid or relevant image(s) for that article are or may be offensive to some readers. In this case, since the images are non-free, his work could be portrayed with any of his works. Black Kite (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. I just wanted to remind you guys "not good for child or somebody" is not a valid reason to remove a media file from the relevant article. -- 06:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Article does not meet biographical standards

It isn't clear what this article is trying to do, leaving it a mess. Is it a biography? Is it an analysis of art? Is it an analysis of LGBT history and culture? If it is a biography, why has it so little information on the artist, other than in his early years? It doesn't even tell the reader in the text when he died (other than in the dates at the top and in the box). It doesn't tell the reader where he died, or what caused his death. It doesn't give any information on whether he was in any relationships, where he lived, or any other information apart from at the start. For a biographical article to not even give basic information on the subject's life and death is unforgivable.

Most of the article reads as an artistic and historical critique of the artist's work. Should that not be in a separate article, or at least in a self-contained section of this one, separate from the biographical information? The article overall seems to be trying to do so much it doesn't actually do anything it is trying to do adequately.

I'm not the right person to try to untangle the article. I don't know enough about the man. It does need major fixing. Hopefully adding in the cleanup reference will encourage others able to do so to untangle this article and at the very least decide what the article is trying to do, and then do it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

It seems odd that this article does not mention the cause of death, particularly since he died at age 71, which is fairly young. Is there a reason for this? If anyone wants to add this information, here's a reference. I'd do it myself, but I'm not very handy with Wikipedia reference formats. http://tomoffinlandfoundation.org/foundation/touko.html Omc (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom of Finland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220192708/http://central-cinema.com/3-questions-with-wes-hurley/ to http://central-cinema.com/3-questions-with-wes-hurley/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)