Image talk:BoyGeorge.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was to Delete the image.

I'm curious to see the argument for how this photo is "replaceable." This publicity photo is 23 years old, and dates to the subject's brief period of fame; it therefore depicts him how he was most known to the public. He now looks completely different, having not only aged over two decades but having completely abandoned the long-haired, gender-ambiguous style by which he was known (and that image was a highly notable and discussed aspect of his celebrity). In public appearances, he is either completely bald (as seen during his community service), or wearing some bizarre kind of makeup that looks like thick, dripping paint (as seen on his recent appearances on VH1). Therefore, it is completely impossible to create a free replacement that adequately provides the same information as this image. Postdlf 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as the tagger failed to provide what and how it is disputed the tag is not valid and may be removed similar to unexplained NPOV tag attached top the article not accompanied with the talk page explanation. --Irpen 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no requirement to add an explanation when adding the {{rfu}} tag. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

None of that is discussed in the article. This is about context, and in the contect it is being used (to illustrate Boy George at the top of the article), it is a repeatable image. If it were being used to illustrate what he looked like 23 years ago (within the context of that being actually discussed in the article), then you could make a fair use claim, but it isn't. ed g2s • talk 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"George was a visible figure in the London club scene; his androgynous style caught the attention of music executive Malcolm McLaren..." That style obviously could have more discussion (such gender-bending was rather controversial back then), but to claim that the difference between how he looked then and how he looks now is simply irrelevant to the article is completely ridiculous. Postdlf 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. If you want to illustrate his style, then place the image in that part of the article with a suitable caption. At the moment it is just sitting in the infobox, illustrating the person. That could be done by a free image. ed g2s • talk 11:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How does placement in the infobox somehow make it more replaceable than if it were anywhere else in the article? The information the image provides (which the caption does specifically identify) is not contingent upon article layout; the infobox doesn't have some magical property to equivocate the content of all photos. Are you really trying to espouse the rule that "Fair use images of living people are always replaceable if they are used in the infobox"? Is your claim this image should be deleted really that insubstantial, such that merely moving it down in the article would make it no longer replaceable in your eyes? Postdlf 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, if an article is about a person (and not a phase in the person's career), then the infobox can hold any photo of the person, so long as it shows what the person looks like or looked like. This is why a non-free infobox image can be replaced by any free image of the person, even if it shows them at a different stage in their career. But an image used in a section that deals with how a person looked at a specific stage -- that image can't be replaced except by another picture that shows what they looked like at that stage.

Compare: Imagine if we had a free image of an old, captive dodo bird (extinct), and a non-free image of young dodo birds in flight. The dodo bird article describes their flight, and that isn't shown in the free image -- but it would be inappropriate to use the non-free image of a flying dodo in the taxobox. All the taxobox has to show is any dodo bird, and it is thus replaceable by the free image. On the other hand, in the section on "dodo bird flight", we could use the non-free image, since the free one wouldn't replace how the photo is used in the context of that section. That would be very similar to this case.

To summarize, an infobox image can be replaced by any image of the subject of the article. But an image in a particular section can only be replaced by an image that shows what that section is about. (Of course you'd also have to be able to claim that the image is distinctly useful, and not just decorative, but in this case I think that would be an easy claim to make.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, it is all about context, and in it's current context it is replaceable. ed g2s • talk 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It still seems like you're (both) just saying the image is replaceable in the infobox, in which case the problem is solved just by moving the image down in the article so that the infobox remains clear for a free image to take root in. Correct? Postdlf 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(late reply) Yes. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the image... The only remaining question was whether the image should accompany the section titled "sexuality," which does focus on and discuss his appearance and style, or higher up under "discovery," where that style is first mentioned and where the image fits chronologically. I opted for the latter, but as this is a mere editorial decision, it can be changed by the article contributors as they choose.

I'm happy to move the image if it will resolve the issue, but I must say that this still seems arbitrary. If there is a "no fair use images in biography infoboxes" rule, ok, but it's a complete non sequitor to then conclude that the fair use image should be deleted instead of merely moved elsewhere in the article. Postdlf 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think either section will do, so long as that section mentions his looks at the time. And I agree that it is better to move a fair-use image to place where a fair-use claim applies, than to delete the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, for the purposes of this rfu discussion, I contend that the image is now non-replaceable in its current context. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep photo. It's not replaceable in this context. Why is there no photo in the Boy George article at all? This lacuna makes our encyclopedia look very poor, and I believe is not good for our reputation. Badagnani 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

So, who wants to summarize the consensus for this image, which seems to be marching inexorably toward Wiki-extinction? I see many editors in support of keeping this image, and, uh, one maybe for deleting? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No takers? C'mon, somebody, come on down and tell us, what was the Consensus decision here? Don't got your copy of WP:CON handy? Well you do now -- just click right here and read all about the value of WP:Consensus. And so ... what was the consensus? Read the comments above -- they're just right up there, scroll up a little ... and summarize:

I believe the consensus was to KEEP the image.

1. . User:Jenolen

I believe the consensus was to DELETE the image.

1. . (add your name here)

I believe there was NO CONSENSUS, meaning the image should stay until a clear consensus for deletion emerges.

1. . (add your name here)

C'mon now, don't be shy! Step right and have your say, the Wikipedia way, with a non-binding straw poll; if it was any less meaningless, it would have it's own whole entry on Wikipedia! Vote early, vote often...

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that this wasn't deleted as replaceable, right? It was closed as irreplaceable, but was later deleted for an althogether different reason, namely, its lack of a source. --Robth^Talk 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which seems odd, given that the image was clearly labeled as being from Virgin Records. Probably a mistake. Glad to see it's back. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's labeled as copyrighted by Virgin Records, but that isn't a source. A source would be a location, either on or offline, where we can actually verify that this is a Virgin Records image (presumably some Virgin records site or publication with the image in it). It seems that you requested its undeletion in order to add one; could you do so? Thanks, --Robth^Talk 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure what's unclear about this. "Virgin Records" is the source of this photo.

I mean, let's use a little critical thinking here. Isn't the primary point of identifying the "source" to help determine who the copyright holder is? And in this case, we have identified the copyright holder -- so really, what difference does the "source" make? We know who owns the rights to this photo - Virgin Records. (I assume good faith on the part of the original uploader, and have no reason to believe this image is not what they say it is.)

I also assume that if either Virgin Records of Boy George wants to make an issue out of this image's inclusion in Wikipedia, they can challenge its fair use status. (It seems extremely unlikely they'd be able to win legally, since this image meets both the legal and more stringent Wikipedia fair use standards, but I know some people here are deathly afraid of lawyers/lawsuits/the law. I also know if this image was the subject of any legal action (and again, that seems like an extreme stretch), we'd simply drop the image at that point.)

So if we've identified the proper copyright holder, really, what's the point in continuing to "identify" the source? I'll drop a message to the original poster, and see if they have any further info, but boy, this does seem like some folks are going through an awful lot of trouble to delete an image that clearly has a strong Wikipedia consensus to keep. Let's at least pretend to TRY to respect that decision. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Virgin records is the copyright holder for this photo, according to the image page. The source is the location that the photo specifically came from, and which we can look at to ensure that this is actually a virgin records image. After all, we don't want to be using this under the assumption that it is a promotional photo from Virgin only to discover that it was actually a stock photo from Getty images or something like that. All fair use photos on Wikipedia are required to be from published and identified sources; this image currently lacks one. With copyright issues, our policy is to "trust but verify" (as the great communicator would say); we expect that our contributors will be honest about where images are coming from, but we require a source to allow us to confirm what they have said. --Robth^Talk 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Virgin records is the copyright holder for this photo, according to the image page. So, I think I've figured out the real issue here: You don't "trust" Virgin Records is the copyright holder. Right? Because if we were to "discover" it's a Getty image, then Virgin Records, obviously, isn't the copyright holder.

In fact, you don't trust the original uploader -- who says it's a Virgin Records promotional image.

There's nothing about this image that says to me it isn't what the original uploader says it is, though. The consequences of a later discovery that the image isn't a Virgin Records promotional image seem miniscule (the image would be deleted, instantly, upon any kind of dispute other than this minor administrative matter). The information provided by the original uploader was "good enough" for Wikipedia for nearly two years, with no problems. And with the strong consensus to keep this image, I'd hope you'd try to find ways to help make this happen. I'll continue trying to track down more info... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people lie about images. I've seen people make honest mistakes about images. Our policy is to require a source which we can use to confirm what the uploader says. --Robth^Talk 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I work in TV news. I've seen much worse than someone lying about the source of an image. But that's the real world. Here at Wikipedia, the most-decidedly non-real world, we assume good faith... unless, apparently, it's about a fair use image with a strong "keep" consensus and zero complaints about its inclusion.

I still have yet to see what you're doing to HELP this content survive, as the consensus would indicate. You wouldn't be trying to nuke this image on a technicality, would you? Nah... petty personal quarrels NEVER get in the way of providing the highest quality, most free possible encyclopedia. Continuing my search to find the right hoop to jump through... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What I've done to help this survive is go through the first 20 pages of google images the other night looking for a source (which took quite some time, as I'm on a damn slow connection right now) with no luck. If you honestly believe that I'm trying to worsen the encyclopedia by deleting images, I'd be very interested to hear you explain why I've saved a number of images from otherwise uncontested deletion by providing rationales.

I agree that this image meets FUC #1. But we have 10 fair use criteria, all of which must be met, and number 10 requires that the image attribute the source. If you have a problem with that policy, you are welcome to challenge it on the fair use talk page. If you would like to help this image comply with policy and survive, this would be a good place to start. --Robth^Talk 11:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I dug through about 20 more of those pages; no luck so far. I don't suppose you'd go for an interpretation of FUC #10: Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) -- that the copyright holder is NOT different, therefore the attribution isn't needed? I figured not... I'll keep looking. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)