1525:
Maybe I should also mention that again, as a gay man who is honestly very tired of seeing
Jennifer Lopez' "booty" and was blessed never to have witnessed Miley Cyrus "twerking," nothing in this painting tires me, which perhaps suggests its value as art is greater than its value as porn of any kind, whether or not the subject is age-appropriate ("age-appropriate," a factor which becomes irrelevant if the picture is, in fact, evocative of art and not of more base emotions, and I am comfortable saying it is the former and simultaneously is not the latter). I feel I know this because of the queasy feeling I do NOT get when I study it. My barometer doesn't shift. It just seems nice, pretty. I like the color tones. I like the splashes of light. To the extent that the image is of high quality and is of great accuracy (both of which seem to be true, yes?), then it meets the criteria of our other featured pictures. How old the model is has no bearing in a non-sexual image. And lastly, as the brother of a woman who spent a year as a federal prosecutor of child pornographers in the Central District of Southern California and who agonized over the hours of pornographic videotape she was required as part of her job to watch in order to be able to effectively prosecute the offenders (an area of assignment that she requested out of because it made her so ill), sometimes, I think, a cigar is maybe just a cigar. This time, anyway. (Sorry, that all took much too long to say.)
835:: "Current child-abuse studies reveal that in the lack of an object, paedophiles may gratify themselves with fantasies triggered by an illustration, and then may be spurred on to seek real equivalents to the image. This connection drawn between child imagery and paedophilia is not new. French physicians were documenting it as early as 1860. Amid comparable moral panic ignited by French natalists over the 'white slave trade' and girl-child pornography before the First World War, picturing the body before the age of sexual consent became the subject of vehement protest, extensive legislation, and vigorous prosecution. Yet, unlike the fate of Henson and Mapplethorpe's photography, art by 'official artists' that fetishised the child's body, as epitomised by Chabas, was, and arguably remains, untouchable. Why this happened and continues to happen is the subject of this paper ...".
2540:, then I would say it is indeed a very fine painting, and a very different proposition to the image nominated. That doesn't mean I would withdraw my opposition, absolutely not, but at least the enterprise doesn't become quite so ridiculous. I did put the image through my processor and pressed the remove color cast button and what came up was close to the version I link, though it couldn't be used. I wouldn't necessarily call the painting a masterpiece, overused term, but I can well see as Ăiliff remarks, that it's a whole level above other of his work I've seen. If the group must Feature his work, and plainly you are all committed to that, then let's at least Feature a (avoiding 'decent') worthy image of it. After checking at the Met if someone in the group can make a a worthy effort at restoring it per the description and advice from the Met, I would have no objection.
213:, where you warmed the flesh tone in a way that Manet absolutely did not intend or would have countenanced and whose only aesthetic purpose can have been to eroticize the image. Unspoken there regarding my distaste, was the age of the subject. It's well known that Manet's subject was deliberately more girl like than adult. That was a significant element in the uproar his painting caused. In those days the age of menarche of working class girls was about fifteen and a half. Street girls starting a life of prostitution typically around the age of fourteen had barely, if at all, entered puberty, and that is deliberately reflected in Manet's painting. Your clearly inappropriate image found its way to Knowledge's front page. I would prefer not see this one too. Not on my account. Standards do change you know. You're an ex-pat Brit I take it, who no doubt has heard of
460:
himself had to step in and make a common sense ruling about the matter and delete the images. The common sense question about this image you should ask yourself is whether the image would gratify a paedophile and the answer is of of course yes it would. We do all know that now. Go on to any beach in the UK and start taking pictures of children and you run the risk of being arrested. Take an unsolicited picture of a nude young girl skinny dipping as you see depicted here and you certainly will be, if not lynched first. Now that of course doesn't mean images of this painting should be deleted from their articles. But it does mean that we should be sensitive in the matter of featuring it. It's not for nothing that this painting is not available for viewing at the Met. Similarly the Tate has removed its
2584:, then I can't imagine it getting into the condition suggested by the nominated image, not in a mere 100 years. I think it's much more likely that the image itself is crap. I mean this group is no stranger to crap Google images, for example. But I'm afraid I shall probably have to retire from this discussion now (lor what a shame). I will email the Met, but I don't frankly expect an answer and indeed if do receive one, I'm not sure I'll be able to share it. I suggest you email yourself. Good luck with your nomination. I mean I think it's totally misconceived and inappropriate, but I do grant at least that the painting itself might have more merit than the nominated image originally suggested.
1383:
when he should have better accepted he was listening to accounts of infant seduction). However I find her images as unsentimental images of innocence (in the tradition of Mary
Cassatt) and certainly not eroticized. The point about your axe-grinding academic Professor Brauer's paper is that she seeks to understand how painters like Chabas escaped censure, while such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Bill Henson did not. I'm away for a while. I don't wish this nomination well. I hope a thousand and one axe-grinding academics descend on it and chop it to death with a million and one indiscriminate cuts (i.e. discriminating between post and poster, myself naturally excluded of course).
51:
324:. I don't think it's overtly sexual, personally. Like a lot of good art, it leaves the artist's intention and message to the imagination of the viewer. And I also don't think it's obvious that the girl is 'too young'. It's of course hard to judge the age of a fictitious girl though. I mean, there are strong arguments that the Statue of David depicts an underage boy too. Let's not be puritanical about art - it's very different to the abuse of a real child. Unless it could be demonstrated that viewing the image could be illegal, I don't think we really have any moral arguments for prohibiting the featuring of it.
498:
dipping when it's pretty obvious that this is a painting and not a photo of a real girl and therefore not a fair comparison. Nobody is being taken advantage of here - there is no abuse victim. Finally, I think you're wrong that you'd get arrested for taking photos of children at a beach. You'd probably attract unwanted attention but under what law could you be arrested? There is no such law, and any attempt by the police to stop you would be probably limited to questioning you and making you feel uncomfortable about what is fundamentally legal.
1520:
presentation here speaks only of that, and while I do consider breasts generally to be something which is often construed sexually, I don't feel like I would accuse anyone in whose collection I found such a painting of likely having acquired it for sexual purposes or interestsâ it's, well, it's just not "dirty enough" (by which I mean to say, "not dirty"). It strikes me as nothing more than a beautiful presentation of feminine youth. I see nothing vulgar here. Now, of course, that does not mean that another equally reasonable person
1252:
up with a fairly plausible hypothesis as to the real identity of the subject. This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today. What this nomination effectively does is allow
Knowledge its equivalent of exhibiting that painting. That there is just one of me against many here signifies nothing as relatively few people interest themselves in the deliberations at WP Featured Pictures. There are no space constraints in Knowledge and I am entitled to argue my opposition.
2562:). It would be agreeable to have the Carson reproduction in the article as an example of what it would have looked like in the late 1950s, in the section describing the painting, if we can cite that it has been severely tarnished over the years (an email from the MET would help there). However, the current look of the painting has more EV than how it looked in the 1950s, as it better depicts the work (as an object, not the image depicted) as it currently is. â
1150:
possibly appearing on its front page as "featured image of the day" and directing their adolescent children to the
Commons collection of images by Chabas for more of the same. As for Chabas he is a very minor artist, picking up a few low thousands at Christie's from time to time. Xanthomelanoussprog may well be right below in his appraisal of the EV of this artist, but whatever it is it certainly isn't in Artwork/Paintings as the nomination claims.
2829:
or scanner plate). The general dirt actually looks more like what would occur on a paper-based reproduction- could also be dirt on the original canvas- however the reduction in tonal separation in the painting's background suggests that there's some kind of generational gap between Brauer's image and the painting- as if someone had photographed an old and worn postcard on slide film and then left the slide unprotected in an office drawer.
1100:
make the subject 17 - 20 and you could then tell Fay to take a hike on her axe-grinding 11 - 13 pedo band wagon jumping on of and feel vindicated. You could even say something nice about me by way of thanks for helping clear up this very pressing issue in art history (oh, all right, I'll let you off that and your sentiments returned). ABF? Can only find
Associated British Foods, but I have made an edit above which I trust soothes you.
2181:. A painting can be pretty heavily damaged in that time, especially if its been in storage for most (if not all) of the past 40 years. For someone who claims a knowledge of art history and the fine arts, claiming otherwise is a rookie mistake. As far as I can tell, the less-brown reproductions on the web are probably based on Carson, Gerald. (1961). "They knew what they liked." American Heritage. 12(5); advertisements for this book in
1297:
blanket statement such as that, implying that anything against your view is not common sense (when your position is clearly against both consensus here, in the press, and the legal US definition of child pornography), then follow this by preemptively stating that you won't debate your position, you aren't exactly opening yourself up to rational discourse; you're poisoning the well before any positive discussion can begin. â
2536:
so I would support dropping the age estimate from the article. Needles to say I support her in her general drift as I understand her from the abstract and I am genuinely curious to know how Chabas escaped censure. I see what you mean from the jpg. I frankly rather doubt the Met let it slide into such a condition. I'll email them tomorrow. Regarding this painting, if it really does, or at any rate did originally, look
665:(ec) Under US law this painting is also completely legal. The model's parents gave their consent, and were present when Chabas painted her (not in the article yet, but the... "Cold Shoulder", I believe... newspaper article on the talk page has this information). She is nude, but there is no "sexually explicit conduct" as defined by the US criminal code (linked above). For a more modern case, think Brooke Shields in
242:
reconsider your vote in light of the purpose of the project (whether or not it has to appear on the main page is an issue for POTD not one to be settled in the FPC queue. To be sure there are some featured images which are considered distasteful and won't end up on the main page). I think it would be reasonable for the closer to ignore this vote as it has nothing to do with the criteria or standards used here.
1644:
ago), I can't think of much that's more ridiculous than having to be clothed to swim or not being able to go naked when it's too hot for clothes, and I have been frequenting the great galleries of Europe for fifty years totally unfazed by 99.9% of the nudes. The problem is not the FACT of nudity, but in this instance the exploitative NATURE of the depiction of the nakedness of an underage girl.
2865:
1579:
article's talk page, I am very largely in agreement with Coat of Many
Colours. The image struck me as repugnant the moment I saw it, since it seems obvious to me that the artist's sole intent was to appeal to those who find such intrusive depiction of underage girls titillating. I urge you not to give it the prominence of featuring it on the Main Page.
2630:
1052:. However there's nothing in the newspaper piece supporting that, which describes her a "hostess". If she really was the actress then she would have been four years older than the 37 given by the piece, making her 17 when she first posed for Chabas. If you would like to OR it, that would be fine by me so long as there's RS at the end of it.
2944:). Don't you think the question of whether the painting today actually looks like the nominated image oughtn't to be addressed fairly quickly? The assumption seems to be that the painting's condition has deteriorated, but I don't see why you are making that assumption. Just as likely seems to me that it is yet another color-cast image.
1550:, so many people can't be wrong. Subject is decent by modern standards. So many people can ertainly not wrong be wrong about that issue. Age - what? I have a friend that looks almost like this - and she is 30 years. And yes, we sick Scandinavian people do go swiming together all naked everywhere - and nobody turns a hair. We go to
1020:
well everyone else, so I would suggest, in the UK trying to protect their children from internet porn and kiddie fiddlers say) paper appearing in a well-known and respected art journal would seem to me to come pretty well high up on the list. This paper cites 11-13 as to the age of the subject. On our community's
2276:
protection as it were). I'm not sure what
Xanthomelanoussprog means by artefact (the coat hidden in the bushes he mentioned in another post? - that would certainly add to the questioning ambiance noted by another editor here), but I don't see how that determines which is the better of the two images. Like
2214:
place elsewhere well short of the mark. You can safely hypothesise I think that I am collector of knick-knacks and that my hobby takes me all over the word. I don't in fact collect works of art very much, the occasional little thing by van Gogh and so on that meets the eye, but not in any systematic way.
2442:. I'll check with the Met. Perhaps it got slashed by an axe-grinding maniac. Can I suggest this nomination is extended so that the group can at least get a reasonable image of the painting to Feature. Please keep your remarks to me on topic, dealing with the issues and not personalities. Whether Chabas'
2107:- If I can see some evidence that the colors are off them I would certainly reconsider based on quality of image issues. I would need to know if the discoloration was due to aging/poor storage of the original(which should not work against the image) or if there were white balance issues or bad lighting.
2489:
Oh also, can you be sure to ask Fay if we can quote her 2001 abstract in full I uploaded that you reverted as you said you would? I expect we can. Her 2011 abstract is marked "© Citation only" meaning we can. Personally I would be satisfied with the abstract quoted in the citation's quote field, but
2333:
And what, exactly, does his works being displayed / not being displayed have to do with this scan of this painting as representational of this painting? You're veering increasingly off tangent. If you really are on a holiday, why not continue said holiday without dealing with all of this? I'd hate to
2256:
So you argue for pages and pages that certain scans colours are off, and that any attempts to fix them make them look even worse, driving one editor to almost retire in doing so, but once you make a mistake you say that you "have never claimed a particular knowledge of art history and the fine arts".
2828:
The image used by Fae Brauer shows damage typical of a dirty and scratched colour slide. Note the rectangular black object lower middle and the two fine lines at an angle to each other. Severe colour fringing at the top may be caused by the slide surface losing contact with a glass surface (mounting
2385:
Prof. Brauer kindly replied to my emailed request for the article Coat originally cited for the 11â13 y.o. estimate (which I will read and parse either tomorrow or the day after). This is pertinent to the current discussion because her article includes a detail and reproduction of the painting, with
2034:
Warrn't talking to you. Talking to user Sca. {{ping|Sca}} it began. He made an arch post on "pedophilia" (foot fetishism if you're not
American) . Hope that clears that up. What I undertook of your mentor was that I would ignore your posts, but I take it you are not so god almightily precious that I
1554:
too, same thing - all naked together, no problem. If God created man in his own image, so what's the problem? The human body is a natural thing - though some might find it repulsive - well, that's their problem, and it is in their mind, not in the real world. It can be easy to find faults everywhere
1382:
Sally Mann's work is generally acknowledged as touching on childhood sexuality (though I deny there is such a thing in any significant sense, believing that to be a paedophile construct, and incidentally
Sigmund Freud himself in later life regretted he concentrated on a discourse of infant sexuality
1251:
I did say that I didn't want to debate it, but Crisco made a puerile and infantile intervention. Of course I responded and as the conversation degenerated further I contributed more. The sum of my contributions in the end was to provide the only peer-reviewed source for this painting as well as come
1099:
germane. But we can continue on that article's Talk page if embarrasses you to discuss it here. I think it's very likely this is the actress
Suzanne Delvé. I can't be arsed myself, but presumably there are images of her out there that can be compared with the one in the newspaper article. That would
996:
The article is a work in progress (which should be obvious; if it was anywhere near finalized, that uncited sentence in "reception" would have been nixed already). I refuse to cite Museum of Hoaxes, for what I would hope are obvious reasons (lack of editorial control, little evidence its an RS); the
851:
Oh well, sober again. I'm glad to see I wasn't offensive. The Brauer article (peer reviewed) looks well researched to me. I'll try and look it up in JStor and write it up for the painting's article. Presumably you didn't notice it? Brauer's estimation of thirteen years old (apparently painted over 3
200:
When I said I wouldn't debate the issue, I didn't mean I wouldn't respond to pointed criticism. The issue here is that this is nominated as a "featured" image. I'm not familiar with nappy advertisements, but if an image of such an advertisement was nominated here which inappropriately eroticized its
2535:
Dropbox would be fine, though I don't actually know how it works. I would like to read Prof Brauer's paper. I'm tolerably curious to know how she arrived at 11-13 (pleeease don't come back at me claiming I'm obsessing about age). I'm afraid do I think that's a subjective assessment and if it proves
2370:
I don't think this is meant to be erotic by any means. I think 1 in every 5 French movies show more underage or borderline-underage nakedness. And since this is featured at the Met, I don't see how could this possibly be considered to be breaking any actual laws. Quality-wise it should be featured.
1578:
I got here totally by accident through happening to still have Crisco's talk page on my watchlist from previous (cordial) conversations. I am a broad-minded, tolerant older woman who has serious reservations about censorship. However, to the extent that I have scanned the discussion here and at the
1428:
fetched ÂŁ2,120 at Christie's recently. If you're willing to back your hunch with hard cash you can open always an account with them expressing an interest. Pretty sure you will find no shortage of estates willing to offload their collections. I can't find any recent lots for Paul Chabas which still
1316:
The only comment I wish to make here is that I share the view of many that the term "child pornography" is an oxymoron, one that in fact serves to justify its existence, and always use a form of words such as "indecent images of children". For the same reasons I avoid the use of the word "model" in
1273:
You overlook some important issues. Namely, this is a forum for debate. You can't participate without potentially engaging in discussion. Secondly, that no museum would exhibit this is purely conjecture. Thirdly, that you're the only one taking your position is significant in light of the fact that
1149:
You misunderstand me. I also think you misunderstand the general public. I am speaking for the general public who don't interest themselves in the deliberations of a small group of art critics and aesthetes here, but who I believe would nevertheless rather not see this image valorised by Knowledge,
1795:
Having now helped Crisco out by translating a French critic for him, and as a result looking at other reproductions, it now seems to me that the colour of this reproduction is heavily skewed towards gold. The palette was described as a symphony in grey (blue-grey, green-grey, violet-grey), whereas
1019:
which is the source for the Suzanne Delve story? It would seem you are applying a degree of editorial discretion as to the quality of the sources cited. A peer-reviewed (whether axe-grinding or not on the question of indecent images of children - erm ... thank god for the axe grinders I and pretty
2980:
That's right. Not sure what your point is. She meant all his paintings, or at least in his nudie girlie genre which was by far the greater part of his output. It's how he made his living. The fact is that Ruskin, Caroll and Chabas are mentioned all of a piece in this area. Witchard isn't the only
1524:
see something vulgar or cannot construe this as an inappropriate representation of naked youth, and does not mean that a genuine paedophile might not decide that the image is arousing somehow and go on to do bad things as a result. But I find the proposition of that to be far more of a stretch.
424:
may have been 16, but this is not a photograph. The subject in the painting is of indeterminate age and looks to me like she might pass for a female in her early 20s. Further, no genitalia are pictured, and the breasts are depicted rather indistinctly, i.e. with discretion. Again, not prurient by
2213:
bears any resemblance to the original, then it's quite clear that your nominated version really can't be considered the finest available. I (CoMC) have never claimed a particular knowledge of art history and the fine arts, a personal attack by a user whose username I dare not name in a protected
1923:
Are you trying to suppress debate here? Why would you want to do that? Awien and Hafspajen, our new contributors, have posted just twice and both their posts have been on topic (whereas yours, on feet fetishism, for example are not always). I've told you before there are no space restrictions on
1643:
Hafspajen, sorry, but you're missing the point. Neither I nor, I assume, Coat of Many Colours is objecting to nudity as such. I myself had a clothing-optional early childhood, as an older woman I continue to be shockingly immodest by North American standards (shocked a doctor - again - just days
955:
It's very good of you to try to find the time to review the Fae Brauer article. It's not available on JStor and I'm not prepared to order a photocopy from the British Library through my little local village library (stuff travels these parts ...) I have emailed Fae Brauer herself to ask what her
531:
I said "run the risk of" and that's absolutely correct in the sense that police have indeed been called out for that sort of thing. I really don't know whether arrests have been made or not. I should think Public Order 1986 would suffice. As a photographer, whose efforts here incidentally I have
497:
Plenty of normal clothed images of children would potentially gratify a paedophile too, just as clothed images of adult women may gratify straight men. That's not the point at all. It's rather irrelevant who might get turned on by what. And why even bring up taking a photo of a young girl skinny
2512:
I will not do so by email, but I would probably be willing to do so via Dropbox (you'd just download). This would be intended for discussion re: the article and not further dissemination, however. Regarding the painting: it looks more like dirt and grime have latched onto the painting, possibly
2275:
What mistake? And it is a matter of fact that I have never once made any claim to expertise in the fine arts. I would not be very successful in what I do if I had not picked up some expertise, but the fact is I've never once claimed it. That is your certain editor's projection (under diplomatic
1296:
And, a third point. Your blanket statement "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" is both pure conjecture and, as the consensus here and in contemporary reviews indicate, rather prudish. You may consider my response "puerile and infantile", but when you make a
241:
You're not thinking. The article is about the painting so there's no alternative image we can use. We're here to evaluate the EV and quality of an image in relation to FP standards - not those of your decency and morals. We're not in the business of painting fig leaves. As it stands, I hope you
221:
newspaper in 1983 (the by-line was "Sam gives up 'A' levels for 'Ooh' levels", which was certainly amusing to say nothing of her enormous tits of course). The point is that following later amendments to the 1976 Protection of Children Act, that publication would now be illegal, indeed merely to
1519:
Let me be clear: as a gay man, perhaps I am uniquely unqualified to assess the image's sexually erotic or pornographic content. As an aesthete, however, I look at this painting and I say, "Why, it looks lovely." I can see that the young girl has the earliest suggestions of breasts, but their
969:
and said she posed in his studio and that the pose arose from her instinctive attempt to protect her modesty. I'm surprised you don't mention this in your considerable expansion (no doubt we can expect a "Did you know" in the fullness of time). I don't doubt that this is the real appeal of the
459:
I think a number of you are being rather precious in discussing whether this image satisfies or not this or that other criteria for indecency. It's a question that after all has been debated with respect to nude images of young people on Knowledge rather a lot in the past. In the end Mr. Wales
1024:
policy that's acceptable to cite. Yet you don't. You say it's something you will look into when you have time. Why is that? I mean, I don't know; I think it's not unlikely that Fay Brauer has gilded the lily somewhat to suit the cut of her axe concerning the subject's age, yes that goes on in
964:
noting the subject's age as sixteen. I made a small copy edit to indicate that was on Chabas' account (by implication). I can add here it's not clear whether that was her age when she began to pose or at the end of the rather long three year period the painting was executed. I notice that you
1362:
at the Gagosian etc., and the Chapman brothers' manikins of children. I've had a look at small images of about 80 of his paintings- he must have been churning them out- and his technique seems to be to use thinned "washes" of oils, maybe without any underpainting. To me (and I've not had the
368:
One of the sources I'm compiling on the talk page (forget which) says sixteen. However, as already mentioned above, this is a far cry from pornography (for some reason I can't find the criteria the US uses to define "underage" or "child pornography", though I remember one of them is sexual
2183:
1025:
axe-grinding academia, but her paper is nevertheless by far the best quality source we have here. Above all, why are you investing so much in this piss poor (yet again the colour of piss as it happens) painting? And why aren't you addressing any of the issues I raise. Balthus? Ovenden?
1555:- if one is loking hard enough... It looks like we are still back in the same old puritan times when this picture was scandalous - what does it say on progress? Let's not all behave like old world Victorians who put covers on the legs of the chairs and the tables because it made them
2386:
a significant yellow tinge. The only difference is that it is brighter and that what appears to be damage to the canvas is rather prominent. She does not explicitly state where the image came from, though, whether it is a photograph she took or an adjustment of the MET's scan. â
2872:"They knew what they liked", and thus be over 50 years out of date) on the left, and an auto-adjusted version of the MET's scan (right). Note that, although some of the colours return to grey, there remain significant yellow stains on the MET's version even after auto-tone.
201:
subject (which I do think is unlikely, but I defer to your expertise), then I would oppose it too while at the same time supporting its appearance in, say, an encyclopaedic article about nappy advertisements. You know very well I'm not a prude, as I took time to annotate
3017:
The passage I wished to draw attention to reads "Pictures like those of Chabas that 'emphasized analogies between the actions of nude little girls and the familiar poses of vanity or physical arousal given to adult woman' had a general market." The in-quote is from
728:
It's the terrible pain of living G. Honestly I can handle it. I also used to do a shit load of dope until the bastards closed down Silk Road (email me anyone if you know an alternative site). Meanwhile I took a deep breath, counted to 10 without inhaling, and found
505:
makes for enlightening reading. It sounds like a law that you'd welcome, but the same common sense you refer to suggests it's a ridiculous and dangerous idea to suggest that anyone taking photos of children must be a paedophile and therefore committing a crime.
965:
uncritically repeat the story (ultimately sourced to Chabas I suppose) about the recoiling pose in the freezing waters of Lake Annecy. A more plausible version I should think is that of Suzanne Delve, who claimed to be Chabas' subject at the age of fifteen
2125:
I agree, based on a Google image search, it's clear that there are a lot of different versions of this painting online. But given that the version we're using comes directly from the MET's website, we should be careful before we assume it's wrong.
1168:
I must say, the one thing I agree with you about is that he wasn't a particularly talented artist, based on the rest of the images in the gallery of the article. I quite like September Morn though, it's significantly better than the others.
3094:. There was an image of it on Commons which I had taken down on copyright grounds (he goes PD beginning next year). In the interest of free speech I shall upload a high resolution version to the article and nominate it for Featuring here.
1694:
Agreed. It's chalk and cheese, but how one defines 'exploitative' is so subjective that I don't think we can throw the word around without defining it more precisely. I agree that (by my own definition), it's not exploitative nudity.
646:
Yes. This is the famous US Supreme Court ruling "evil lies in the eyes of the beholder". It sucks. 2% of us *are* evil. One in every street. End of. This is an image that needs to stay under the bed. Get real. Ask any mum. Last from
695:, whose work I adore and upload to Commons (presently too drunk to locate mine amongst the hundreds uploaded, sorry) is another example. It's a question of taste. It's at the Met as you say, but it's not on view. Ask yourself why.
591:
1043:
I see you've added Delve now. Thank you for that. I made a small expansion to say she would have been 13 years old when she first posed for Chabas and to add the significant detail that she struck her pose "instinctively". I
2490:
if you feel you would enjoy paraphrasing the paper as an exercise demonstrating how a skilled and respected administrator approaches such a task, that would be great learning experience as well. I've already archived it at
1130:
If we are to go by common sense I will point out that you are the only one who sees this as inappropriate and that the common sense is that there is nothing sexual about the image. It is you who have the uncommon opinion.
2420:
It's the orange tinged area on the right arm, extending upwards to the lower right breast and also on the right thumb- I've had a look at the Met site zoomed up to the maximum and it still looks too bright to be paint.
2896:
Yes. Brauer's version is the one that looks like a print, not the MET's. If yellow stains are left, and they are present on the original painting, it may be the result of a botched clean- I've seen similar stains on a
205:
at my suggestion. I resent that you don't respect my right to take a discreet position on a matter of principle as I seek to without mocking me. It's doubly surprising because as you know I vehemently objected to your
607:
who saw just half a dozen or so cases in his practice but nevertheless was able to differentiate between benign and pathological presentations. 'Paedophile' itself not a construct that appears before 1951. HTH.
1818:
is the result of my sloppy photography- I think the same is true of the cast here (I thought it might have been discoloured varnish, but I've just checked a "rebalanced" copy and it brings out greys and greens)
2877:
I've uploaded this to aid discussion. The resolution of the MET's scan suggests, to me, that it can't possibly be a postcard reproduction that they scanned, and there is no semblance of paper texture in their
2280:
I had never heard of this painting before, though I grant you it appears to have once been enormously popular in the US. But it's quite plain I think that this is a very poor image of a very suspect painting.
1094:
Missed on the fine print, sorry. The article said "hostess" and didn't accent her name. It's you who is gripped by the issue of her age and legality (not me, I know chicken when I see it), so I would say it
936:
article as saying she looks 14), but when even her identity is not known, there's not much that can be done to confirm. Either way, 13 or 16, the legality of this image does not change, and it's not being
1363:
opportunity to look at any of his paintings in the (cough, splutter) "flesh") it suggests that his technique may have been more spontaneous and rapid than the three year production claimed for
787:
Although I agree with Gamer's comment, I just want to note that the reason it's not on view is not necessarily owing to the model's age. Indeed, when it was first put into storage in 1971, the
1429:
include their Lot notes, which are often very detailed and informative. I'll add him to my own account and when a lot does come up consider editing at his article on the basis of the notes.
283:, I also think it is a tasteful depiction and was interested to read about the controversy it caused; it's an attractive piece of artwork and I have no problem supporting the nomination.
713:"presently too drunk". Can we end this discussion right here for the time being? Because that is quite possibly one of the worst things one wants to hear about an editor on this site.
730:
207:
2901:
portrait from being wiped down with a damp rag or something. As to Brauer's, I know (secondhand) what the relationship between lecturers and the reprographic department is like :)
1502:
Painting appears to have supported and continues to support a whole industry of impostors, yellow journalism, concerned citizens and axe-grinding academics, and therefore has EV.
1317:
this context and use "subject". I can add that I have scrupulously avoided seeking the input of others here. If I had, I'm pretty sure you it would be you in a minority by now.
3160:
1076:
Suzanne DelvĂ©. I simply went with the source, in which she describes herself as a former stage and film actress. I recommend that you redact your ABF accusation immediately. â
160:, the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards. Some common-sense discretion surely advisable here. Are we also to feature the more provocative of
2157:
The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills
1672:
978:. I shall be away again soon, but I shall follow the developments here with interest. My view is that legality in not an issue here. Rather common-sense and good taste.
3054:
No, haven't heard anything from the Met. As regards Witchard, at least one of the titles given is wrong- however a Google image search for it will produce a link to
554:
art that contained nudity, mainly paintings of adults. And had to give up his powers on Commons because of this. Let's not act like Wales' actions were at all noble.
1407:
and its widespread reproduction ultimately limited any subsequent opportunity he had to be viewed as a serious artist, but that's getting into OR territory there. â
932:
I'll have to see Bauer's article when I've got the time. Most sources, however, give 16. Perhaps a young-looking 16 (one of the newspapers I'm looking over quotes a
227:
I don't believe I can have anything more to contribute here. I trust I have satisfied your circle here that my opposition is neither frivolous nor a troll. Mock on.
1998:
Am I to understand this is a crap (colour of) image anyway? So why was it nominated as the finest Knowledge has to offer?. And is the proposal now to photoshop it?
1235:
In other words, almost twice as long as the article as it currently stands, and twenty times the length of the article as it was when this image was nominated. â
956:
sources are for the age, but as I expect you know academia in general doesn't pay much attention to requests from Knowledge editors. I see you've been editing at
182:"the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" - You better not watch any diaper commercials, then. About the same degree of nudity. â
532:
often lauded, you must surely know that any image of a child nominated FP on Commons will quite likely be rejected if there's no evidence of parental permission.
109:
2319:. I suspect that does indicate those works have been removed from public display. I'll email the Petit Palais to enquire and report back if I get a response.
1397:
I have a feeling if we were to expand Chabas' article, we'd find the French certainly considered him fairly talented. Grand Prix at the 1899 Paris Salon for
3055:
376:
3150:
3096:
It would seem this nomination is to go forward tomorrow, even though it's not all clear that the image is a good one. I shall roll my eyes and look away.
2257:
I will refrain from saying what this makes you, but the implication is here, just as you implied I was something much worse at the article's talk page. â
792:
1367:. Mentioning this in the context of whether the painting has artistic value- it's possible that his technical ability as an artist is being under-rated.
1072:
Two things: First, and again, the article's content is not germane to the FPC nomination and only serves to take up space. Second, I did not say she was
2238:
is present in the linked image, suggesting that it is derived from the nominated file. I think the linked file is the commercially-available version.
271:, unless a reliable source would say she's under 18 or something like that, but even then such an argument hardly substantiates an oppose in my view.
2035:
cannot even allude to them. Goodness. I was defending your right to post here, for example to register your distaste for the tone of the discussion.
970:
painting to many, the suggestion of voyeurism. I do find this account more plausible because it's absolutely unnecessary to have your model pose in
2981:
source. So what's being done about this particular nomination now that it's conceded its another color-cast image on the Talk page at its article?
202:
464:
from public display. I should think there are similar examples in many other museums. This one likewise needs to stay in the reserve collection.
499:
164:' paintings for example? In making this oppose I exercise my right to make an oppose clearly stating a reason. I'm not prepared to debate it.
3155:
1597:
Just a minor note, Awien: the FPC process does not guarantee that an image will run as POTD (although it is a prerequisite to it). The FP of
997:
only reason its still there is because I haven't edited it out. Anyways, the content of the article is not germane to this FPC discussion. â
17:
1873:
Sent one to the Education Department (for the life of me, couldn't work out who else to send it to- definitely not "Teen Programs" though).
2779:
2693:
2657:
2585:
2541:
2495:
2215:
2160:
2036:
1999:
1978:
1925:
1275:
243:
2778:
I dislike the implication that all this debate is trivial. I think the issues are really important and I shall carry on championing them.
1425:
2581:
2472:
2454:
2320:
2294:
50:
1194:
I like it too. Call it kitsch or banal if you will, but the subject looking off camera, so to speak, evokes a questioning ambiance.
691:
saga I quoted, his paintings are drop dead gorgeous but the fact is he's doing time for them, and he surely had parental permission.
1977:
I'm the user Coat on Many Colours (on the run :)). Thanks for your input. I shan't contribute more here, but I did appreciate it.
2580:
The point is I don't know what the painting looks like or what to expect. But I would say that if the painting ever looked like
267:
Good resolution and directly sourced to Metmuseum. The oppose vote above is amusing: how do you know she's "too young"? That's
3101:
3041:
2986:
2949:
1773:
1455:
1434:
1388:
1322:
1257:
1155:
1105:
1057:
1030:
983:
871:
857:
842:
818:
774:
738:
700:
652:
613:
537:
469:
354:
232:
169:
2446:
paintings of naked young girls are still on display in European galleries is on topic in terms of the oppose that I raised.
3063:
3004:
2967:
2906:
2834:
2426:
2308:
2243:
1878:
1864:
1824:
1507:
1372:
837:
I have to attend to some other matters now. Probably I shan't be back, even if sober (well frankly, especially if sober).
2439:
2406:
continues to hang in the Metropolitan Museum..." (p. 139) indicates that, as recently as 2011, it was still hanging. â
379:) called it "as delicate and innocent as it is beautiful", looking at the nudity as more artistic than pornographic. â
1815:
974:
with all its attendant difficulties, of which not least one would be spectators and possible interest from the local
2937:
2056:, as you did, not mentioning it, for example is a good start. Keep NOT talking to me, and not saying things like:
3136:
3105:
3067:
3045:
3008:
2990:
2971:
2953:
2941:
2928:
2910:
2887:
2856:
2838:
2787:
2768:
2749:
2734:
2716:
2701:
2683:
2665:
2642:
2593:
2571:
2549:
2526:
2503:
2480:
2462:
2430:
2415:
2395:
2380:
2347:
2328:
2302:
2266:
2247:
2223:
2200:
2168:
2142:
2116:
2077:
2044:
2025:
2007:
1986:
1960:
1933:
1906:
1882:
1868:
1850:
1828:
1805:
1777:
1732:
1711:
1685:
1653:
1635:
1614:
1588:
1568:
1542:
1511:
1484:
1459:
1438:
1416:
1392:
1376:
1326:
1306:
1283:
1274:
there's a very clear consensus. Anyone is welcome to voice themselves, but being righteous is far from productive.
1261:
1244:
1223:
1203:
1185:
1159:
1140:
1109:
1085:
1061:
1034:
1006:
987:
946:
923:
875:
861:
846:
822:
804:
778:
760:
742:
719:
704:
678:
656:
637:
617:
584:
562:
541:
522:
492:
473:
451:
434:
410:
388:
363:
340:
316:
299:
275:
251:
236:
191:
173:
152:
136:
502:
486:. Hell, this doesn't even have to be on the main page. I personally do not know what the issue is you're raising.
3097:
3037:
2982:
2945:
1769:
1451:
1430:
1384:
1318:
1253:
1151:
1101:
1053:
1026:
979:
867:
853:
838:
814:
770:
734:
696:
648:
609:
533:
465:
349:
228:
165:
1398:
3059:
3026:
quoted in the previous paragraph and a footnote is provided which reads "Ibid. See for example Lewis Carroll's
3000:
2963:
2902:
2830:
2422:
2239:
1874:
1860:
1838:
1820:
1503:
1368:
1279:
866:
I've added a description of Brauer's paper to the article. I do think this nomination should now be withdrawn.
604:
369:
suggestiveness). Although some might consider the image questionable owing to the model's age, others (such as
247:
2783:
2697:
2661:
2589:
2545:
2499:
2471:
Oh, and can you email me a copy of Fay Brauer's paper at my CoMC account please. Email is enabled. Thank you.
2219:
2164:
2040:
2003:
1982:
1929:
832:
394:
2868:
Side by side comparison: the "Museum of Hoaxes" digitization (which I think may be from Gerald Carson's 1961
2476:
2458:
2324:
2298:
292:
3090:
2537:
2210:
2924:
2883:
2852:
2730:
2679:
2567:
2522:
2411:
2391:
2343:
2316:
2282:
2262:
2196:
1846:
1837:
I've noticed that the "rebalanced" copy still has considerable brown stains, when I do it in Photoshop.
1610:
1602:
1468:
1412:
1302:
1240:
1081:
1002:
942:
800:
674:
406:
384:
187:
132:
101:
2558:
We should be featuring the painting as it is now, not as it was at a certain point in the past (think
733:
I uploaded. I will defend the right of this image not to be featured on Knowledge to my dying breath.
2744:
2711:
714:
487:
117:
93:
68:
64:
1796:
there's no grey at all in this reproduction. It probably doesn't adequately represent the painting.
2152:
2073:
2021:
1728:
1681:
1564:
1559:. (Cast - no idea - you people will surelly find a decent reproduction of the picture to feature.)
222:
purchase a copy of it also illegal, as the bright line for nudity was set at eighteen years of age.
3084:
elsewhere, and that's right about the other two titles which seem to refer to the same painting.
2653:
1664:
1601:, for instance, was decided by consensus to not be appropriate for running on the main page, and
371:
284:
3030:(c.1879-79), a naked child in the erotic pose of an odalisque". An ensuing paragraph references
2514:
852:
years - goodness, that's a long time ... ) looks about right to me. I'll look for his sources.
348:
Going by the article, does that mean this was painted when the girl was 15 and thus underage? --
2016:
Don't talk to me. Said nothing on feet fetishism and I don't like the tone of this discussion.
2608:
Congrats to all of us nascent art historians and art critics â we have now reached and indeed
2376:
2191:
version indicates a bit of yellowing already, though that may be the aging of the magazine. â
2108:
1631:
1539:
1132:
966:
915:
752:
629:
557:
443:
272:
147:
97:
1754:
3031:
2920:
2879:
2848:
2726:
2675:
2563:
2518:
2407:
2387:
2339:
2258:
2192:
2136:
1993:
1842:
1705:
1606:
1408:
1298:
1236:
1179:
1077:
1021:
998:
938:
796:
687:
Yes, but legality is not really the issue here as I stress. I'm not going to delve into the
670:
516:
402:
380:
334:
217:. Directly she had turned sixteen years old, she appeared topless as a page 3 model for the
183:
128:
72:
1801:
1649:
1598:
1584:
1356:
This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today.
67:(1869â1937) which caused controversy after it was displayed in Chicago. The city's mayor,
2234:
There's an artifact in the nominated file, which is accentuated by image processing. The
83:
High resolution of a notable painting, perhaps the artist's best known. A scandal, 'twas.
1049:
2069:
2017:
1746:
1724:
1677:
1560:
1475:
should be promoted if for no other reason than its enduring power to spur controversy.
688:
461:
89:
59:
3144:
3133:
3019:
2847:
You know, I think you may be right about that. Explains a couple of the scratches. â
2764:
2638:
1956:
1902:
1669:
Yes, but this is not an exploitative depiction of the nakedness of an underage girl.
1480:
1219:
1199:
580:
430:
312:
3085:
2962:
I see Anne Veronica Witchard's book cites the titles of three paintings by Chabas.
2864:
2372:
2290:
2277:
1627:
1527:
692:
268:
214:
2293:- I doubt it's on display today) I found just now. Not on my account, thank you.
398:
2898:
2614:
2127:
1696:
1170:
507:
483:
325:
1016:
1972:
1797:
1742:
1645:
1580:
1359:
2674:(Me, deliberately missing the point): But that article's so much shorter! â
2559:
3130:
Promoted File:Paul Chabas September Morn The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg
2068:
and stuff. Think that nobody called YOU one or two well deserved things.
2311:
lists only 19 works by Paul Chabas, mostly self-portraits and none in the
2760:
2634:
1952:
1944:
1918:
1898:
1476:
1215:
1195:
576:
426:
308:
3024:
Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-siĂšcle Culture
1450:
Sorry to add yet again to the verbiage here. Just trying to be helpful.
2491:
1556:
1471:
fantasies, but that in itself doesn't make him a poor artist. Further,
161:
71:, charged the gallery with indecency, and later anti "vice" crusader
1749:
misunderstands, or simply does not know, the ideal of the so-called
1403:, after all. I think, personally, that the massive controversy over
1841:, did you figure out which email address to contact for inquiry? â
2863:
1551:
769:
No idea. Pissed, sorry. If it comes back to me, I'll let you know.
49:
2999:
Yes, Witchard's index has the names of three of his paintings.
2187:
had a colour print, so I'd think that the book does too. This
2919:
Indeed. ;) Glad I just have to worry about text criticism. â
2209:
I hadn't looked out for other versions of this image but if
628:
I see nudity, I don't see sexuality. There is a difference.
3034:. None of the three paintings indexed refer to the passage.
967:
http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_september_morn_hoax
914:
I don't think it will be withdrawn. It is likely to pass.
203:
a series of Japanese erotic prints you uploaded to Commons
2710:
I've already forgotten the point of this nomination now.
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
1947:
does not respond to unsigned comments. (Nor does he
144:, though, honestly? It's actually pretty tasteful.
2450:off the diet-sheet for me I'm afraid, as is (say)
1673:File:Hatch, Evelyn (Lewis Carroll, 29.07.1879).jpg
2940:by a German wikipedia user (since overwritten at
2618:article, which comprises a mere 8,000 words. Our
603:American spelling. 'Paedophilia' a neologism by
442:High encyclopedic value and high image quality.
2759:Is this an instance of rhetorical pointillism?
1760:directly cites Chabas' paintings and Carroll's
2692:Woops! So totally me. Can't even count ... :)
2309:the French national collection databse Joconde
1048:wonder if in fact she is the Parisian actress
3076::) yes, the allusion not lost on me. I think
1214:Preceding discussion comprises 4,000+ words.
110:Knowledge:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
8:
1814:The yellow cast of the painting depicted in
1017:http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/26000710/
3161:Featured picture nominations/September 2014
1753:in late Victorian sexuality. Anne Witchard
208:digital restoration of an image of Manet's
2338:or whatever while arguing about kitsch. â
1046:noticed that you appear to identify her as
575:â Let's see now, is that a lover of feet?
2402:Another note: the sentence "... Chabas'
2064:don't like the tone of this discussion,
1626:- Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...--
550:Point of order here: Wales was deleting
2938:This is the version originally uploaded
3036:Have you heard back from the Met yet?
2058:you are not so god almightily precious
1467:Chabas certainly churned out a lot of
307:â Iconic, and certainly not prurient.
3058:. As well as an image of a banknoteâŠ
18:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates
7:
2725:May I point you to the beginning? â
2627:
2513:damaging the paint, than an attack.
2492:http://www.webcitation.org/6SmmP79s0
588:
86:Articles in which this image appears
63:is a painting by the French artist
3151:Ended featured picture nominations
482:Oh come now. Its not like this is
24:
2652:Let me know if it ever gets past
1859:No, sorry, I'll get on to it now.
2628:
2113:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}
1764:odalisque together via Dijkstra
1721:As different as chalk and cheese
1137:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}
1015:So what's the problem with this
920:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}
757:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}
634:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}
589:
448:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}
3088:actually has a painting called
2155:commencing "Quote from article
3137:12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3106:18:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
3068:16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
3046:15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
3009:07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2991:19:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2972:15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2954:12:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2929:13:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2911:11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2888:10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2857:08:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2839:08:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2788:04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2769:13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2750:02:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2735:01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2717:01:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2702:04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2684:01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2666:01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2643:23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2594:04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2572:01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2550:01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2527:00:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2504:20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2481:18:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2463:18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2431:18:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2416:16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2396:16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2381:10:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2348:16:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2329:15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2303:15:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2267:12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2248:11:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2224:11:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2201:00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2169:19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
2143:18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
2117:18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
2078:21:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
2045:19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
2026:18:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
2008:16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1987:16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1961:21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1934:16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1907:15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1883:15:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1869:15:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1851:15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1829:14:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1806:14:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1778:00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
1733:15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1712:14:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1686:14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1654:13:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1636:01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
1615:16:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
1605:has several other examples. â
1589:16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
1569:16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
1543:15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
1512:18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1485:13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
1460:16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1439:16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1417:08:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1393:20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1377:06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1327:16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1307:05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1284:05:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1262:02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1245:01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1224:16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1204:00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1186:21:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1160:21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1141:18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1110:12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1086:11:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1062:10:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1035:01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1007:00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
988:17:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
947:15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
924:14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
876:10:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
862:09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
847:01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
823:01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
805:00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
779:09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
761:01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
743:01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
720:00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
705:00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
679:23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
657:23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
638:22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
618:10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
585:21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
563:22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
542:23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
523:21:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
493:20:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
474:20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
452:18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
435:16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
411:16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
389:16:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
364:16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
341:15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
317:15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
300:09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
276:08:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
252:15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
237:13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
192:09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
174:07:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
153:06:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
137:06:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
3156:Featured picture nominations
2743:Can it even be pointed out?
2334:think you're missing out on
399:The actual legal definitions
2151:Debated in the other place
2054:Don't mention my name then'
1816:Alexander Brownlie Docharty
425:current Western standards.
3177:
2942:File:September-Morning.jpg
106:FP category for this image
2538:like the version I linked
2066:"puerile" and "infantile"
3028:Portrait of Evelyn Hatch
1358:? "Other stuff exists"-
420:â The model Chabas used
2177:And that quote is from
1943:As a matter of policy,
422:more than a century ago
2873:
2656:. That might impress.
2582:this commercial poster
2283:Here's another example
76:
39:Voting period ends on
2867:
53:
3098:Coat of Many Colours
3038:Coat of Many Colours
2983:Coat of Many Colours
2946:Coat of Many Colours
2622:discussion now tops
2060:, (bad style) and I
1770:Coat of Many Colours
1751:erotic innocent girl
1452:Coat of Many Colours
1431:Coat of Many Colours
1385:Coat of Many Colours
1319:Coat of Many Colours
1254:Coat of Many Colours
1152:Coat of Many Colours
1102:Coat of Many Colours
1054:Coat of Many Colours
1027:Coat of Many Colours
980:Coat of Many Colours
868:Coat of Many Colours
854:Coat of Many Colours
839:Coat of Many Colours
831:Eleven years old in
815:Coat of Many Colours
771:Coat of Many Colours
751:What right is that?
735:Coat of Many Colours
697:Coat of Many Colours
649:Coat of Many Colours
610:Coat of Many Colours
534:Coat of Many Colours
466:Coat of Many Colours
229:Coat of Many Colours
166:Coat of Many Colours
125:Support as nominator
69:Carter Harrison, Jr.
3060:Xanthomelanoussprog
3001:Xanthomelanoussprog
2964:Xanthomelanoussprog
2903:Xanthomelanoussprog
2831:Xanthomelanoussprog
2440:This image perhaps?
2423:Xanthomelanoussprog
2307:Just to add here -
2289:(apparently at the
2240:Xanthomelanoussprog
1875:Xanthomelanoussprog
1861:Xanthomelanoussprog
1839:Xanthomelanoussprog
1821:Xanthomelanoussprog
1504:Xanthomelanoussprog
1369:Xanthomelanoussprog
960:extensively since,
3080:is the one called
2874:
2654:RSA (cryptosystem)
2612:the volume of the
1354:*Stop whispering!
1047:
372:The New York Times
102:SuccĂšs de scandale
77:
2870:American Heritage
2771:
2645:
2617:
2285:of this artist's
2141:
1963:
1909:
1745:is quiite right.
1710:
1668:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1309:
1286:
1265:
1247:
1226:
1184:
1045:
795:as the reason. â
789:Milwaukee Journal
621:
620:
587:
521:
395:Layperson's guide
361:
339:
118:Paul Ămile Chabas
98:Harry Reichenbach
94:Paul Ămile Chabas
65:Paul Ămile Chabas
47:
3168:
3032:James R. Kincaid
2758:
2747:
2714:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2613:
2602:
2315:he is noted for
2139:
2135:
2134:
2130:
1997:
1976:
1942:
1922:
1891:
1757:Dark Chinoiserie
1708:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1662:
1541:
1537:
1532:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1295:
1272:
1250:
1229:
1208:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1173:
717:
602:
601:
594:
593:
592:
571:
561:
519:
515:
514:
510:
490:
355:
337:
333:
332:
328:
297:
289:
288:
151:
73:Anthony Comstock
38:
36:
3176:
3175:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3141:
3140:
3082:The Shepherdess
2745:
2712:
2629:
2137:
2132:
2128:
1991:
1970:
1916:
1755:at page 186 of
1706:
1701:
1697:
1599:Michelle Merkin
1533:
1528:
1526:
1180:
1175:
1171:
715:
590:
555:
517:
512:
508:
488:
335:
330:
326:
293:
286:
285:
145:
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3174:
3172:
3164:
3163:
3158:
3153:
3143:
3142:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3123:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3095:
3071:
3070:
3049:
3048:
3035:
3012:
3011:
2994:
2993:
2975:
2974:
2957:
2956:
2932:
2931:
2914:
2913:
2891:
2890:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2842:
2841:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2780:103.27.229.112
2773:
2772:
2753:
2752:
2738:
2737:
2720:
2719:
2705:
2704:
2694:103.27.229.112
2687:
2686:
2669:
2668:
2658:103.27.231.186
2647:
2646:
2620:September Morn
2597:
2596:
2586:103.27.229.112
2575:
2574:
2553:
2552:
2542:103.27.231.186
2530:
2529:
2507:
2506:
2496:103.27.231.183
2484:
2483:
2466:
2465:
2434:
2433:
2404:September Morn
2399:
2398:
2383:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2331:
2305:
2270:
2269:
2251:
2250:
2227:
2226:
2216:103.27.231.221
2204:
2203:
2172:
2171:
2161:103.27.231.148
2146:
2145:
2120:
2119:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2048:
2047:
2037:103.27.231.148
2029:
2028:
2011:
2010:
2000:103.27.231.148
1989:
1979:103.27.231.148
1965:
1964:
1937:
1936:
1926:103.27.231.148
1911:
1910:
1886:
1885:
1871:
1854:
1853:
1832:
1831:
1809:
1808:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1736:
1735:
1715:
1714:
1689:
1688:
1657:
1656:
1638:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1603:WP:POTD/Unused
1592:
1591:
1572:
1571:
1545:
1514:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1442:
1441:
1420:
1419:
1405:September Morn
1365:September Morn
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1311:
1310:
1288:
1287:
1276:24.222.214.125
1267:
1266:
1189:
1188:
1163:
1162:
1144:
1143:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1089:
1088:
1065:
1064:
1038:
1037:
1010:
1009:
991:
990:
958:September Morn
950:
949:
934:New York Times
927:
926:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
864:
849:
836:
833:this discourse
826:
825:
808:
807:
782:
781:
764:
763:
746:
745:
723:
722:
708:
707:
689:Graham Ovenden
682:
681:
660:
659:
641:
640:
623:
622:
596:
595:
566:
565:
545:
544:
526:
525:
495:
477:
476:
454:
437:
415:
414:
413:
391:
343:
319:
302:
278:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
244:24.222.214.125
224:
223:
195:
194:
177:
176:
155:
139:
121:
120:
115:
112:
107:
104:
90:September Morn
87:
84:
81:
60:September Morn
45:06:00:42 (UTC)
33:
30:
28:September Morn
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3173:
3162:
3159:
3157:
3154:
3152:
3149:
3148:
3146:
3139:
3138:
3135:
3131:
3107:
3103:
3099:
3093:
3092:
3087:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3069:
3065:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3033:
3029:
3025:
3021:
3020:Bram Dijkstra
3016:
3015:
3014:
3013:
3010:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2973:
2969:
2965:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2958:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2912:
2908:
2904:
2900:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2876:
2875:
2871:
2866:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2827:
2826:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2751:
2748:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2718:
2715:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2644:
2640:
2636:
2625:
2621:
2616:
2611:
2607:
2606:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2515:You can check
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2473:103.27.229.55
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2455:103.27.229.55
2453:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2400:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2384:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2369:
2368:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2321:103.27.229.55
2318:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2295:103.27.229.55
2292:
2288:
2284:
2279:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2236:same artifact
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2212:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2180:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2140:
2131:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2118:
2115:
2114:
2111:
2106:
2103:
2102:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1995:
1990:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1974:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1895:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1758:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1700:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1671:This is-: -->
1666:
1665:edit conflict
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1538:
1536:
1531:
1523:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1357:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1174:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1129:
1128:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:Suzanne Delvé
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
994:
993:
992:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
968:
963:
959:
954:
953:
952:
951:
948:
944:
940:
937:withdrawn. â
935:
931:
930:
929:
928:
925:
922:
921:
918:
913:
912:
877:
873:
869:
865:
863:
859:
855:
850:
848:
844:
840:
834:
830:
829:
828:
827:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
759:
758:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
718:
712:
711:
710:
709:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
661:
658:
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
642:
639:
636:
635:
632:
627:
626:
625:
624:
619:
615:
611:
606:
605:Kraft- Ebbing
600:
599:
598:
597:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
560:
559:
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
543:
539:
535:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
520:
511:
504:
501:
496:
494:
491:
485:
481:
480:
479:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
455:
453:
450:
449:
446:
441:
438:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
367:
366:
365:
362:
359:
353:
352:
347:
344:
342:
338:
329:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
290:
287:SagaciousPhil
282:
279:
277:
274:
270:
266:
263:
262:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
225:
220:
216:
212:
211:
204:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:
179:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
154:
150:
149:
143:
140:
138:
134:
130:
126:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
111:
108:
105:
103:
99:
95:
91:
88:
85:
82:
79:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
61:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
3129:
3128:
3089:
3086:Edvard Munch
3081:
3077:
3027:
3023:
2869:
2626:words. Wow.
2623:
2619:
2609:
2605:Wordage log:
2604:
2603:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2403:
2335:
2317:linked above
2312:
2291:Petit Palais
2286:
2278:user:Johnbod
2235:
2188:
2182:
2178:
2156:
2112:
2109:
2104:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
1948:
1894:Wordage Log:
1893:
1892:
1792:
1765:
1761:
1756:
1750:
1720:
1670:
1640:
1623:
1575:
1547:
1534:
1529:
1521:
1516:
1499:
1472:
1404:
1400:Joyeux Ăbats
1399:
1364:
1355:
1353:
1232:Wordage Log:
1231:
1230:
1211:Wordage Log:
1210:
1209:
1136:
1133:
1096:
1073:
976:gendarmerie
975:
971:
961:
957:
933:
919:
916:
788:
756:
753:
693:Egon Schiele
666:
633:
630:
572:
558:Adam Cuerden
556:
551:
456:
447:
444:
439:
421:
417:
393:Here it is:
370:
357:
350:
345:
321:
304:
294:
280:
273:Brandmeister
264:
218:
215:Samantha Fox
209:
157:
148:Adam Cuerden
146:
141:
124:
75:targeted it.
58:
54:
44:
41:26 Sep 2014
40:
32:
27:
2921:Crisco 1492
2899:John Lavery
2880:Crisco 1492
2878:version. â
2849:Crisco 1492
2727:Crisco 1492
2676:Crisco 1492
2615:Miley Cyrus
2564:Crisco 1492
2519:Crisco 1492
2408:Crisco 1492
2388:Crisco 1492
2340:Crisco 1492
2259:Crisco 1492
2193:Crisco 1492
1994:Crisco 1492
1924:Knowledge.
1843:Crisco 1492
1607:Crisco 1492
1469:water nymph
1409:Crisco 1492
1299:Crisco 1492
1237:Crisco 1492
1078:Crisco 1492
999:Crisco 1492
939:Crisco 1492
797:Crisco 1492
671:Crisco 1492
667:Blue Lagoon
484:Child Bride
403:Crisco 1492
381:Crisco 1492
184:Crisco 1492
129:Crisco 1492
3145:Categories
2746:GamerPro64
2713:GamerPro64
1360:Sally Mann
962:inter alia
813:That too.
793:"banality"
716:GamerPro64
489:GamerPro64
2560:Mona Lisa
2494:for you.
2070:Hafspajen
2018:Hafspajen
1747:Hafspajen
1725:Hafspajen
1678:Hafspajen
1561:Hafspajen
1473:September
1022:WP:VERIFY
972:plein air
573:Pedophile
375:, quoted
3134:Armbrust
2610:exceeded
2211:this one
731:this one
503:and this
462:Ovendens
351:Muhammad
346:Question
55:Original
3091:Puberty
3078:Puberty
2373:Nergaal
2110:Chillum
2105:Comment
1897:6,400.
1793:Comment
1641:Comment
1628:Godot13
1624:Support
1557:excited
1548:Support
1517:Support
1500:Support
1134:Chillum
917:Chillum
754:Chillum
631:Chillum
457:Comment
445:Chillum
440:Support
418:Comment
322:Support
305:Support
281:Support
265:Support
210:Olympia
162:Balthus
142:Support
114:Creator
2452:kufteh
2313:oeuvre
2287:ouevre
2138:(Talk)
2129:Ăiliff
1707:(Talk)
1698:Ăiliff
1576:Oppose
1522:cannot
1181:(Talk)
1172:Ăiliff
518:(Talk)
509:Ăiliff
336:(Talk)
327:Ăiliff
158:Oppose
80:Reason
2624:8,200
2448:Satay
2444:genre
2336:satay
2062:still
1973:Awien
1798:Awien
1766:et al
1762:Hatch
1743:Awien
1646:Awien
1581:Awien
1552:sauna
1264:: -->
791:gave
127:â Â â
16:<
3102:talk
3064:talk
3056:this
3042:talk
3005:talk
2987:talk
2968:talk
2950:talk
2925:talk
2907:talk
2884:talk
2853:talk
2835:talk
2784:talk
2765:talk
2731:talk
2698:talk
2680:talk
2662:talk
2639:talk
2590:talk
2568:talk
2546:talk
2523:talk
2517:. â
2500:talk
2477:talk
2459:talk
2427:talk
2412:talk
2392:talk
2377:talk
2344:talk
2325:talk
2299:talk
2263:talk
2244:talk
2220:talk
2197:talk
2189:Life
2184:Life
2179:1912
2165:talk
2159:"..
2153:here
2074:talk
2041:talk
2022:talk
2004:talk
1983:talk
1957:talk
1949:ping
1930:talk
1903:talk
1879:talk
1865:talk
1847:talk
1825:talk
1802:talk
1774:talk
1741:No.
1729:talk
1682:talk
1650:talk
1632:talk
1611:talk
1585:talk
1565:talk
1535:4444
1508:talk
1481:talk
1456:talk
1435:talk
1426:This
1413:talk
1389:talk
1373:talk
1323:talk
1303:talk
1280:talk
1258:talk
1241:talk
1220:talk
1200:talk
1156:talk
1106:talk
1082:talk
1074:that
1058:talk
1031:talk
1003:talk
984:talk
943:talk
872:talk
858:talk
843:talk
819:talk
801:talk
775:talk
739:talk
701:talk
675:talk
669:. â
653:talk
614:talk
581:talk
538:talk
500:This
470:talk
431:talk
407:talk
401:)Â â
385:talk
377:here
358:talk
313:talk
295:Chat
248:talk
233:talk
188:talk
170:talk
133:talk
3022:'s
2761:Sca
2635:Sca
1953:Sca
1951:.)
1945:Sca
1919:Sca
1899:Sca
1530:KDS
1477:Sca
1216:Sca
1196:Sca
647:me.
577:Sca
552:any
427:Sca
309:Sca
219:Sun
43:at
3147::
3132:--
3104:)
3066:)
3044:)
3007:)
2989:)
2970:)
2952:)
2927:)
2909:)
2886:)
2855:)
2837:)
2786:)
2767:)
2733:)
2700:)
2682:)
2664:)
2641:)
2592:)
2570:)
2548:)
2525:)
2502:)
2479:)
2461:)
2429:)
2414:)
2394:)
2379:)
2346:)
2327:)
2301:)
2265:)
2246:)
2222:)
2199:)
2167:)
2133:«»
2076:)
2043:)
2024:)
2006:)
1985:)
1959:)
1932:)
1905:)
1881:)
1867:)
1849:)
1827:)
1804:)
1776:)
1768:.
1731:)
1723:.
1702:«»
1684:)
1676:.
1652:)
1634:)
1613:)
1587:)
1567:)
1510:)
1483:)
1458:)
1437:)
1415:)
1391:)
1375:)
1325:)
1305:)
1282:)
1260:)
1243:)
1222:)
1202:)
1176:«»
1158:)
1108:)
1097:is
1084:)
1060:)
1033:)
1005:)
986:)
945:)
874:)
860:)
845:)
821:)
803:)
777:)
741:)
703:)
677:)
655:)
616:)
583:)
540:)
513:«»
472:)
433:)
409:)
397:,
387:)
331:«»
315:)
291:-
269:OR
250:)
235:)
190:)
172:)
135:)
100:,
96:,
92:,
57:â
3100:(
3062:(
3040:(
3003:(
2985:(
2966:(
2948:(
2923:(
2905:(
2882:(
2851:(
2833:(
2782:(
2763:(
2729:(
2696:(
2678:(
2660:(
2637:(
2588:(
2566:(
2544:(
2521:(
2498:(
2475:(
2457:(
2425:(
2410:(
2390:(
2375:(
2342:(
2323:(
2297:(
2261:(
2242:(
2218:(
2195:(
2163:(
2072:(
2039:(
2020:(
2002:(
1996::
1992:@
1981:(
1975::
1971:@
1955:(
1928:(
1921::
1917:@
1901:(
1877:(
1863:(
1845:(
1823:(
1800:(
1772:(
1727:(
1680:(
1667:)
1663:(
1648:(
1630:(
1609:(
1583:(
1563:(
1506:(
1479:(
1454:(
1433:(
1411:(
1387:(
1371:(
1321:(
1301:(
1278:(
1256:(
1239:(
1218:(
1198:(
1154:(
1104:(
1080:(
1056:(
1029:(
1001:(
982:(
941:(
870:(
856:(
841:(
817:(
799:(
773:(
737:(
699:(
673:(
651:(
612:(
579:(
536:(
468:(
429:(
405:(
383:(
360:)
356:(
311:(
246:(
231:(
186:(
168:(
131:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
