-
File:Lt Clayton.JPG (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) (
restore|
cache|
IfD |
article)
Closed by myself as keep on the basis that the discussion consensus had image meeting the non-free-content rules, specifically
WP:NFC, unacceptable use, images#12
This closure has been contested and I'm bringing it here for discussion/possibly overturning of the closure. Personally I believe that the image does not meet the NFC rules but that consensus in the discussion was that it did. The general bent of those seeking to keep the image is that it is sufficiently iconic of the person that a later image would not be as encyclopedic/iconic as this one is. Those on the delete side both at the IfD and later see that the image does not pass this bar. Discussion of this type of issue (a non-free image of a living person) at
WT:NFC seems far from reaching a conclusive consensus.
Peripitus
(Talk)
03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure. The question seems close to me, and in such cases consensus decides.
Eluchil404 (
talk)
03:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn At the risk of turning this into IfD2, I disagree with the statement that the image represents a view that is iconic or encyclopedic. It appears to be a relatively poor image of the subject in uniform. The image is meant to illustrate the POW's from the falklands war, but has been cropped so much that it doesn't do that. I sympathize with the closer. Consensus versus policy is hard to judge in the image deletion threads, given the low number of participants and the very explicit policy. I wish that we would devise a method to treat image deletions so that we can avoid the bureaucracy of closing a debate contrary to policy in order to relist it at DRV, but closing IfD debates against consensus appears to have the same result. Sigh.
Protonk (
talk)
03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. With all respect for Peripitus' stance in defering to majority opinion even against his own judgment in closing this, I don't believe this is a good idea in an NFC case. These cases are different from normal XfDs, in that deletion may be mandatory under policy even against local consensus, and in such a conflict a closing admin must follow his own understanding of what the policy demands (or refrain from closing altogether, if they feel they can't do that.) In this case, I think Peripitus too readily defered to numbers, contrary to the principle that IfD is not a vote. Many of the keep votes were demonstrably faulty, being based on a misunderstanding of policy. One voter had claimed there was a special exception for old images of uniformed soldiers who are now retired, and subsequent voters voted "keep as per...", taking this claim at face value as a valid statement of policy. Later discussion has clearly established that this exception doesn't exist in policy and was purely a private opinion (see discussion at
WT:NFC, where consensus is clearly against the interpretation made at the IfD). This image is as straightforward a case of replaceable-qua-living-person as any. The living-persons rule is one of the few NFC components that are directly dictated by the Foundation, and it is not within the purview of IfD discussions to water it down with arbitrarily vague interpretations.
Fut.Perf.
☼
05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and sympathy to the closing admin. Local consensus cannot trump policy and in this case its a replacable image of a living person and I simply can't see what value the image is adding to the article. Is side and there is no background. This simply cannot meet our image polices and should have been deleted.
Spartaz
Humbug!
05:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (Add) I cropped the image down as I thought that was part of the "fair use rationale" process. I can easily upload the full version of the image and if it this minor detail that makes you think this image is without value, it can easily be rectified.
Ryan4314 (
talk)
23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure. As the reams of back and fro discussion on the original
IFD and
NFCC Talk demonstrate, the wording of policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for interpretation to keep. The uniform being an essential visual image of a soldier, an image out of uniform would clearly not have the same encyclopedic content and so is permitted under the exemption However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. A non-free image is permissible in this case.
Justin
talk
07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment As a general comment I find it rather disturbing that people are advocating avoiding IFD or DRV in deleting images. Personally where policy is ambiguous, proper debate and consensus is the proper means of resolving the situation.
Justin
talk
08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and delete. Non-free images of living people really shouldn't be used.
Stifle (
talk)
11:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and delete - The delete arguments were stronger. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." See
WP:DGFA. No evidence such as reliable source information was presented in the deletion discussion to support the idea that his "notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance." Also, uniform means uniform in visual appearance, not distinctive in visual appearance. If this low ranking soldier stood out among all the other soldiers because the close he chose to wore in battle, his fellow soldiers probably would have
fragged him. Standing out by uniform in an army is reserved for generals and
this guy. The keep arguments were based on opinion and the delete arguments were ground in the underlying policy. Since the delete arguments were stronger, the keep close should be overturned. --
Suntag
☼
16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and delete. Yep! I read the arguments of both side and the delete arguments were stronger.
AdjustShift (
talk)
19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse/keep This image meets the criteria for inclusion as a non-free image. Those who advocate removing this image need to realize "Non-free images of living people really shouldn't be used" isn't a valid reason to delete an image in and of itself. If so,
this photo should be deleted as it is of a living person.
This recent photo should be deleted too as
the person is still alive. A more serious problem is the fact that policy is indeed ambiguous and could be better phrased (that some people even deny there is a problem and is another problem too!). My attempts to fix such a problem were resoundingly shot down, generally under the "no, not that" kind of argument (which I can accept), but with no additional guidance (not acceptable).
- It should also be noted that my argument (and others) are about policy and do not contradict it, but only seek clarification. Since none is forthcoming, we are now here.
— BQZip01 —
talk
21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Note that the first image you mention is in the public domain and so
WP:NFCC doesn't apply to it. The other is a more complicated case--personally I might argue against that one, but the counterargument would be that the thing that makes that person notable is no longer true of her. I don't think either of them is comparable to the image of Admiral Clayton.
Chick Bowen
23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I feel the need to add a comment on the arguments on the keep side as some of those arguing overturn seem to want to re-run the IFD. There were strong arguments on both sides but commentators here seem to feel it necessary to denigrate the opposing argument rather than argue the merits of their own case.
As I pointed out at NFCC I did a fairly simple thought experiment and asked a few colleagues what was the first thing that popped into their mind associated with a soldier. To a man they said "uniform" and if I were to do the same here I would be very surprised if anyone was to reply any different. The uniform is one of the essential things that define a soldier and is an essential feature of their identity. The uniform is a striking visual image, its part of their identity; soldiers wear their uniform all the time. At one level it removes individual identity, at another it marks them out as members of a group. It is such an essential part of their identity that the image of individual retired and out of uniform simply does not convey the same encyclopedic content. Policy allows an exemption for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, after retirement a picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
Not one editor has objected to this image on criteria grounds, the only thing against it is that BLP does not generally allow a non-free image of living persons. However, there is an exception to that policy and it is arguable that it applies to individuals such as this. All of the arguments at the IFD were based upon policy not opinion, being brutally honest, the policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation. The keep arguments were just as validly based on policy as the delete arguments and the consensus at IFD was that the image was allowed on the basis of policy. There were strong arguments on both sides at the IFD, personally I would commend Peripitus for following the consensus that the image conformed to policy against his own view of policy.
Justin
talk
19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Reasonable close, and that's all that need be said about it. The claim about past career made sense as one of he standard exceptions. I see the delete votes as an attempt to alter established policy. When policies conflict, the admin is not to judge which of them takes precedence, but to simply say what the community thinks as expressed at the XfD. We know enough to throw out non-policy based arguments, but we are not qualified to overrule the community about just what the policy is, and which one is applicable. Nobody claims this right for content, not even arb com.
DGG (
talk)
21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn & delete One of the few parts of the
WP:NFC that is relatively easy to interpret is the use of non-free images on BLP's. Clayton's notability does not rest on his earlier visual appearance and this image cannot really be justified under the NFC. It almost certainly also fails
WP:NFCC#1 & 8, a blurry cropped image of Clayton standing in a field doesn't significantly add to understanding and is easily replacable by text. This image shows one small, insignificant part of his long career, it certainly has no iconic value.
RMHED (
talk)
23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Question: Hang on, so what's this? I'm still new to the "behind the scenes" works of Wikipedia. I put a non-free image gets put up for deletion, closing admin says it stays, then another admin (FPAS)
complains to him, n now he suddenly changes his mind n this thing starts. I don't get how I'm supposed to get a free image of him at the surrender of
Port Howard, that event happened 26 years ago. I am still however looking for a free image for his infobox pic.
Ryan4314 (
talk)
23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Keep (1) The closing admin appeared to make a reasonable judgment of the lack of consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. (2) An image of a person as he looked on the day he made history a quarter-century ago is not replaceable by a free image that may or may not be obtained in the future. Unless the
Argentinians are planning to invade again, at which time
the Queen will recommission
HMS Cardiff and bust the
Admiral back down to
Lieutenant, and send him back once more, it's hard to see how this photo could be reproduced. :-P --
SSB
ohio
03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. An admin made a reasonable decision about consensus in a disputed case, against his personal judgment of the merits. If that isn't what admins get paid for, don't know what is.
John Z (
talk)
04:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse based on clear lack of consensus to delete. i recognise that there is ongoing overt discussion about changing the rules to ensure this image disappears at some point, but the decision of the closing admin was appropriate. I'm also concerned that some arguments are now advocating that consensus should not apply and that decisions in this area need some kind of arcane knowledge that mere mortals aren't endowed with. That is a significant shift in direction for Wikipedia and probably needs exercised in the broader context, rather than just through a self selecting group.
ALR (
talk)
05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse per my above entries
Ryan4314 (
talk)
10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Ok. here is where I see this. IF this photo is simply of a person (and the cropped version is), then we would have to make some pretty heroic arguments to get around NFCC 1 and 8. Simply suggesting that he was notable for being in the military and now isn't in the military doesn't cut the mustard. If, however, the photo is of an event that happens to have people in it and that event is something of interest, that is a different matter entirely. If, in the
Port Howard article, we show a larger image which includes POW's in the background, this isn't the same discussion. the fact that is has living people in it doesn't matter, that event has come and gone and this is the only available photographic record of it. On top of that, a photograph helps illustrate the subject (the surrender of Port Howard). That is a much easier argument to make. But we aren't in that situation. We weren't in that situation in the IfD. We have an image which is cropped to be exclusively that of a living person and as such a free equivalent can always exist (especially for the
Christopher Clayton article). The simplest way to fix this dispute is to upload the full image and unlink it from
Christopher Clayton. That way we have an image that satisfies the NFCC. Otherwise we are left justifying the inclusion of this photo by appealing to reasons that apply to a different, hypothetical photo.
Protonk (
talk)
22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If that's what people want, I have no problem doing that, no one mentioned it until now and I just assumed FUR images had to be cropped.
Ryan4314 (
talk)
00:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That seems to be a good solution to me, but remember that probably would mean a good fair use rationale could be written for Port Howard but not for Christopher Clayton. If you feel strongly that the image should be in both articles I don't want you to cut this process short. But it is probably the easiest solution, all things considered.
Protonk (
talk)
01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- During the deletion review nobody once mentioned NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, then nobody challenged that the image met those criteria. This isn't IFD its DRV and the purpose of DRV I will remind you is to confirm whether the IFD conformed to policy. It doesn't exist to have another bite of the cherry and re-run the IFD. As to the argument that a suitable free image of a retired military image can always exist, well there is a convincing argument to the contrary.
Justin
talk
08:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Hey. There is no need to get snippy with me. I'm aware of the purpose of the IfD and noted as much in my keep comment up near the top. The reason this DRV was opened is that the admin was faced with a good faith concern that local consensus was being used to override policy. As such, our opinion of what the policy says is important. DRV isn't just "was consensus followed" because then we wouldn't need it. It exists because we balance local consensus against community policies and guidelines and sometimes those conflicts result in a close being out of line with policy. In cases like this, a DRV will look a lot like IfD2 because the relevant interpretations of the NFCC are critical to determining if we can even say the close was good or bad. In this case I'm suggesting a simple solution to this problem: upload a version that includes those POW's meaningfully and unlink it from the Lt. Clayton article. As for the image of the retired persons bit, I don't agree with you, and I don't think
WP:NFC does either.
Protonk (
talk)
15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- No one is getting snippy, the IFD didn't consider NFCC#1 or NFCC#8 the argument centred around whether the image was exempt or not to the criteria for living persons. So to be blunt the DRV considers that question and is not a re-run of the IFD. There is sufficient ambiguity in that area for two reasonable people to read that Paragraph and come to separate conclusions as to whether the argument I advanced was valid or not. The consensus at the IFD was that sufficient people agreed with that interpretation and it was within the policy guidelines. Given the lack of a clear consensus that it isn't outside of guidelines, then on balance both at IFD and DRV the result should be KEEP. It is not a case of balancing local consensus against policy guidelines, the arguments were advanced on a policy basis. Where policy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for more than one interpretation, to my mind the balance of consensus is key to deciding the issue. Peripitus didn't make a bad closure, in fact I have to commend him for going against his own interpretation in line with community consensus.
Justin
talk
19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia is not a appellate court. We are not forbidden from discussing issues with the image that would impact the propriety of the close if those issues were not raised in the original IfD. As an analogy, if we had an article that violated
WP:BLP but was kept at AfD due to a local consensus that it was ok, we would expect that it would be ok to raise BLP issues at the DRV. Further, while NFCC 1 may be ambiguous to you,
Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 is not. To quote (under inappropriate image use): "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).", "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.". The only thing which is up for debate is the last clause of the second point there. And I repeat that it is a tenuous argument to claim that a non-free image of the subject in uniform serves some function that a free image or text can not. As another easy analogy, we do not allow film stills of actors in roles to show the actor, even when that actor is overwhelmingly famous for that role specifically (see
Ian McDiarmid). As for the "local consensus versus policy" issue, it doesn't matter if the local consensus discussion involved discussion of the policy. If the retention of this image represents an implementation or interpretation of
WP:NFC that is not supported by the community at large (as it is a policy, not a guideline), then what needs to be looked at is the local consensus, not the policy. This is a fuzzy point, so I can see where we would disagree (as it is ok to have different interpretations as an outcome of local consensus, just not interpretations so divergent that we would have to rewrite the NFC to reconcile them). But simply discussing policy doesn't mean that a local consensus can override it.
Protonk (
talk)
20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Why is it a tenuous argument? I've had people says its weak, doesn't conform to policy, now you're saying tenuous not to mention a number of analogies that just don't actually relate to the argument. However, I've also had a number of people agree with me and support it on that basis. Not one person has said this argument is wrong because .... About the only person who has addressed the argument advanced the comment that a uniform was, well, uniform. However, I think I answered that by pointing out that it also separates the military from the civilian and for that reason is a striking visual image. If someone can come up with a compelling reason why an image of a retired soldier in civilian clothes is in anyway a suitable replacement for an image in uniform I'm prepared to listen. Otherwise its just some old dude in a suit and to be honest I think it does ex-servicemen and woman an injustice.
- In addition I don't see how you'd have to re-write NFC to reconcile my interpretation, there is an exemption in policy that already exists for retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance. Its permissible within the existing guidelines.
- Finally, just to re-iterate, policy was discussed but not over-ridden, the consensus was that the image fell within policy guidelines. There is a big difference there.
Justin
talk
20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see how the film star analogy didn't fit. Ian McDiarmid is mostly famous for his role as Emperor Palpatine. It would be insane to suggest that a free image could be taken of McDiarmid as Palpatine, for a number of different reasons--just as it would be insane to suggest that a free image of Clayton as a LT could be obtained. However, NFCC 1 does not allow us to include a non-free picture of McDiarmid as Palpatine in the article for that reason alone. Similarly, a non-free image of a military member who is now retired can't be used just because they no longer wear the uniform. I didn't feel the need to formulate my response in the form of "your argument is wrong because...", but if you would like me to, here goes. Your argument is wrong because you appeal to a non-existing exemption to the NFCC in suggesting that photographs of still-living retired military personal can be used as fair-use simply because they no longer wear the uniform.
- As for the "does servicemen an injustice". Baloney. Were I to ever be notable, I don't feel that a picture of me out of uniform would be an injustice. Likewise I don't feel that a picture of another military member out of uniform is somehow demeaning. That uniform represents a lot of things to the wearer. Some of them personal. Some of them societal (as in, connected to military traditions more than their personal feelings about it). It does not, however, mean that portraits of these men and women are frozen in time. Even retired individuals, who (at least in the US) do not actually officially leave the military do not have a homogeneous impression of their self-image.
- As for the "earlier visual appearances" bit, we are stretching the limits here. You refer to the photo as "striking". Tell me what is striking about it? Is it solely the visual reminder (i.e. the flight suit) that the subject was once a military member? Really? How is that not replacable by the text "Clayton is now retired from military service"? As for the claimed exemption in the NFC: How is Clayton notable for his visual appearance as a LT, rather than being a LT?
Protonk (
talk)
22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Were McDiarmid to dress up as the Emperor Palpatine 24:7 for his entire career it might be an appropriate analogy but he doesn't and never will; it isn't part of his identity it was a role in a film. Nobody would argue that an image of him in that role could not be replaced by a free image. However, the difference with a soldier is that the uniform is part of the identity, it what marks them out as separate from the civilian, it is a striking visual expression of their identity and it is worn 24:7. So the film star analogy doesn't fit at all.
- In response to your comments. I disagree there is an exemption to the rules on living persons
However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
- so a) retired CHECK, b) notability rests on earlier visual appearance CHECK, and a new image would not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career CHECK. In other words, arguably the use of images of service personnel during their service fall into this exemption.
- And sorry but I do happen to think that later images of servicemen do them an injustice, you actually managed to capture some measure of the reasons in your own response. The uniform does mean an awful lot to the wearer, its part of their identity, its part of what makes them a soldier.
- Why is the photo striking? Well it tells us that Clayton took part in a historic event for one, in a conflict for which he is notable for a Mention in Dispatches. It is intended to conveys a visual image of his military service that couldn't be replaced by text. To use another analogy, the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima can always be replaced by text to the effect that three blokes raised a flag on top of a mountain can't it? The obvious answer is that no it can't.
Justin
talk
20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm glad you mentioned the Iwo Jima photo, because that is the prim example of the exception to the otherwise clear rule. That photo is permitted as a FU exception because the photo itself is notable. In this case, nothing about the photo is notable. There is explicitly not an exemption for photos of notable events, because that is how (were this taken by a war correspondent) war correspondents make their money.
Robert Capa made money by taking amazing photos of singular events. We can't just repurpose photos like that because we think the event is significant. As for the ritered person exemption, I don't think we are seeing eye to eye. Clayton wasn't notable for his appearance. He was notable for his acts. He wasn't playing at being an officer, he was an officer. As such, we can't justify including his photo on that basis. For the military uniform bit, I guess we'll jsut have to agree to disagree. I don't think it is offensive or dishonorable to show a free photo of a man in civilian clothes where a copyrighted photo of them in uniform would work just as well. On that note, have we tried just asking him? I'm sure an e-mail address is available somewhere, or a mailing address. He may be able to release a current photo or release an old photo.
Protonk (
talk)
00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, asking him has been tried through the auspices of the HMS Cardiff association, in fact as I pointed out at IFD Ryan went to some lengths to get a free image. I'd also suggest that you're wrong about the war correspondent commercial interest in this case, as the image use would still have to pass NFCC and would fail on the commercial use criteria; this image doesn't. As for notability based on appearance, can I suggest a simple experiment, ask a few people what is the first thing they think of in relation to the image of a soldier? Agreeing to disagree with I don't have a problem with, I take issue with people saying the argument is invalide without providing a reason.
Justin
talk
11:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (outdent)I agree with Protonk in that an uncropped photo would raise different discussion issues that may need its own IMFD. An uncropped photo would make it more likely that source material discussed the photo. Cropping the copyrighted photo makes a
derivative work (which requires a permission seprate from mere copying) and disrupts the right of the copyright holder to have their work displayed as a whole. Check out
U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act. --
Suntag
☼
00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- NFCC#3b states "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace." NFCC policy directs editors to use a portion of an image where this is possible, which is exactly what has been done. It seems strange that an objection is being raised against an action sanctioned by Wikipedia policy defined by the Wikipedia foundation.
Justin
talk
08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- But, as I hoped I had made clear, the cropped photo shoes (effectively) just the person, not the event. An uncropped photo would show the event and so would have a FUR for Port Howard but not for Christopher Clayton. Your quote is correct insofar as cropping doesn't basically alter what the image is meant to represent.
Protonk (
talk)
17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and delete - If confined solely to its merits within the NFCC, this image fails to meet that policy and should be deleted. Discussion on alterations to the policy are ongoing, but they appear to be a rehash of the same argument over whether or not a uniform is an irreplaceable part of a person's image (it isn't). The image itself is (like the Conquerer image before it) a poor illustration of its subject anyway and can probably still be deleted. The only difference between this one and any other image of a doctor or farmer is the ultranational egotism that crops up over images of members of the military.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk)
23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I take great offense at this accusation. I can certainly express an opinion regarding the subject at hand without such slander & slurs. Please retract the last sentence.
— BQZip01 —
talk
05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, wait a minute, what was that last sentence for? It wasn't really needed.
Protonk (
talk)
13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
|
