- Image:Airforce-ti.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|IfD)
This was a free public domain image, published by the U.S. Air Force on their official website, of a female Military Training Instructor at a graduation parade. Image was used for approximately two months in the articles Drill instructor, Recruit training, and History of women in the military. On 22 March, the image was deleted pursuant to a WP:OTRS complaint. According to the deleting admin, the complaint originated with unspecified "people from the Air Force"; its general nature was that one of the persons depicted had undergone disciplinary action since the photograph was taken (explained in the edit summary of this diff by the deleting admin). This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the Air Force has since removed the photo from their official website as well.
I've been over and over the image policy and can't find a policy justification for the image's deletion, unless it's WP:IAR. The image was in the public domain and did not contain any negative information about the individuals depicted. The deleting admin did not specify whether the complaint came from Air Force personnel in an official or unofficial capacity - either way, I can't find a policy supporting an undiscussed deletion for these particular circumstances.
I'm no attorney, but I guess the question comes down to this -
- If the request was made by the Air Force in an official capacity, can they withdraw an image from the public domain once they have already released it?
- If the request was made by Air Force people in an unofficial capacity, who simply have some objection to the person depicted in the photo, can they have the image deleted without discussion via a WP:OTRS complaint? RJASE1 Talk 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum - I should have posted this earlier, but, in case anyone wants to see what the image looked like, here it is as hosted on another website. RJASE1 Talk 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum 2 - The deleting admin has apparently gone on a WikiBreak and is unavailable to answer questions - can another admin get the ticket number and take a look at the complaint? RJASE1 Talk 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I think the question comes down to is "Is it worth the trouble to tell them that they can't have the picture deleted?". So if there's a picture that would work just as well, pleas use that instead and save the trouble. If there isn't, which I suspect, it's more complicated, but we still shouldn't get into unnecessary trouble based on the fact that it's not really valid. -Amarkov moo! 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Complications
- According to the edit summary there, they apparently dismissed her for posing for Playboy. She is (former) U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Michelle Manhart. The WP article is well sourced , including BBC, but has no image. The Playboy pictures appear (as obvious copyright violations) at various places in the web, (and perhaps the dismissal was well justified by the applicable standards).
- At present , the picture used for History of women in the military is that of Nicole_Malachowski, the WP article on her used a somewhat less striking picture. (It's the same person, as shown by http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pilots.html, which has the picture under question and her name). Her career seems to have been both distinguished and uncontroversial. It's a suitable replacement. For the other three pictures, an amusingly more stereotypical replacement was used, and is in fact appropriate.
- However, the US government probably has no right to withdraw an image except for national security considerations, and perhaps it is our responsibility as citizens to see that our rights are preserved, and some think this best done by exercising them vigorously. I do not know just what photograph we had--possible the one from the BBC story? The picture should be restored to commons, and belongs, in the right place, the article on the person. I don't really see how we can defend it being used under drill instructor. We should simply treat it as an ordinary editorial decision. DGG 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the problem is that the person in the picture is not identified as Michelle Manhart - though I agree with you the similarity in names is probably not coincidental. Has anyone established that this is, in fact, the same individual? I've searched for a reliable source, but have been unable to find one. And I guess the secondary point I wanted to make here was that, if other images for the articles were preferred, this was not the way to go about it - it should have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. RJASE1 Talk 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion despite the above original research - this is not worth the trouble. OTRS personnel are privy to private correspondence and have to make judgement calls. They should be left to make them unless there is incredible reason to do otherwise. This is not such a case. No, copyright holders cannot revoke free licences, but as a courtesy we routinely remove images on similar grounds - particularly when they contain identifiable individuals.--Docg 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I understand - I've never before had any complaint with the OTRS process. I'm not asking for the specifics of the OTRS complaint; I'm just hoping for someone to verify the deletion was in accordance with policy and to be informed (in a general way) of the specific policy applied. I don't think that's unreasonable. RJASE1 Talk 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- When we receive complaints, we try to be helpful. When the request is reasonable and won't make wikipedia fall down, we try to comply. Wikipedia can have very negative effects on real people in the real world - OTRS operators use their judgement to try to mitigate that. It isn't always about citing specific policies by section numbers, it is about the spirit of the project and doing the Right Thing. It's often a difficult judgement call.--Docg 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - no arguments here. If there was the possibility of harm to an individual, or even if the person depicted in the image requested deletion, I would be first in line to support that. I'm just skeptical that this is the case here. (Although I do want to emphasize that I sincerely believe the deleting admin was acting in good faith, I just disagree with the decision.) RJASE1 Talk 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The image seems to have been removed from its original location [1]. Not sure if it has been deleted or simply moved, but if the former we should probably follow suit. ~ trialsanderrors 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No offense, but why? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of US government public domain images on WikiMedia, most of which are not currently displayed on a government website. This doesn't invalidate their public domain status. RJASE1 Talk 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because I'm guessing in this case it was pulled for a reason. ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Argh - I'm trying not to look like some psychotically-obsessed person by responding to every single post here, I'm just looking for a coherent explanation of what that reason could be. I should say I'm perfectly willing to drop this whole thing if someone could offer a substitute free image, of comparable quality, of a female enlisted Air Force drill instructor. RJASE1 Talk 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- as for identity, I think one of the not quite legit web sites has our picture as well. But after looking around a little in a scientific spirit, I can see why the Air Force would have wanted it removed. To describe it in words, one of the pictures had her wearing (only) a small part of a uniform similar to that of a drill instructor, and a good deal of fun was made with that concept in the legends. It wasn't the government being ridiculous--it was the govt being, actually, fairly sensible, though it may pain me to say it. Considering the readership of Playboy, legit edition and otherwise, it would have been a mockery to use her for this. We should pick another case to defend our rights. DGG 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. As a licencing and policy matter, the issue is clear: the image is PD, we infringe no laws that I can think of by keeping it, and it is of encyclopedic use (if only to illustrate Michelle Manhart - one can even read the name tag). I can imagine that the picture is mildly embarrassing to the ex-sergeant and the USAF, but since when is it part of Wikipedia's mission not to hurt the tender feelings of the U.S. military and the amateur pr0n stars it employs? We are, after all, not censored. Sandstein 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- We are a educational charity not a free-speech campaign group, or a gutter newspaper, which will defend its rights to embarrass people regardless of the educational metits. (Use of this image to illustrate Manhart would clearly constitute original research, anyway). Your argument is unacceptable.--Docg 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- We're not a newspaper or a campaign group, but neither are we a charity (the Foundation is). We are an encyclopedia, "a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge". What matters is whether that information is notable and within our scope, not whether it embarrasses someone. I'd have no problem deleting the article on Michelle Manhart, since it's essentially a (marginally interesting) news story more appropriate for Wikinews. But as long as we have the article, us including this harmless picture can hardly embarrass the woman any more, given that the porn images she posed for are already all over the web along with her full name. It's also a good image well suited to illustrating various military-related articles. (As to OR, no: the name is right there on the name tag, no research required.) Sandstein 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Up to a point. It's a good quality image, but not really representative of what air force training instructors actually look like - if it was, there would be no need to advertise for new recruits, they'd have to beat them off with a stick. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, per Doc glasgow. --bainer (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion per Doc. When identifiable people are concerned, and free replacements are reasonably available where necessary, OTRS people shouldn't have to publicly state every specific of the complaint. That would sort of negate the point of OTRS. If this were a major newsworthy photo, I might be willing to fight for our right to use it per freedom of speech concerns, but that simply isn't the case. If we're Byzantine about simple deletions like this, it will mean we lose all our teech when a real free-speech issue comes up. Mak (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Nobody is asking for the specifics of the complaint. RJASE1 Talk 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. My own experience with OTRS and my familiarity with the way Doc handles these things leads me to the conclusion that even when not all the details are public, the decision that was made was the most sensible. We´re not censored, but neither are we obliged to follow the lead of other websites that make decisions based on other grounds or standards than we do. --JoanneB 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Absolutely no reason that this image needs to be used. At times we need to make judgment calls that balance Wikipedia's mission and that of people in the image and the image's owner. I trust OTRS volunteers to do their job and make these tough calls. FloNight 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, as deletion is the correct tool to be used when a not-public person has found a picture of themselves being published by us solely because copyright is not involved. Jkelly 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Restore. The picture isn't the least bit embarrassing or salacious per se (no matter what hyperbole Doc Glasgow offers up about the "gutter press"), it's public domain, it illustrates an actual existing encyclopedic subject (Women in the military or Michelle Manhart -- whether the latter is worthy is an entirely separate issue), and "because the Government wants to sweep this under the rug" is a lousy excuse for a pre-emptive deletion. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Including this particular image smacks strongly of WP:POINT. Are there really so few pictures of air force training instructors that we absolutely must have this one? I think not. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Per Doc, FloNight, Guy, Jkelly et al... This image does not further the cause of the encyclopedia. We are not investigative journalists or tabloid press. OTRS was asked to do something, the trusted person that handled the ticket acted, and to undelete causes further needless drama. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. An image of someone who has now become someone specific and identifiable is no longer the best image to illustrate a generic article. Re: supposed censorship, WP:POINT. It's a judgment call, certainly, but I'd come down on the deletion side.--SethTisue 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Honestly, I appreciate the declarations of support for the WP:OTRS process - I share it, as I expressed above. But most of the votes above ignore and/or misrepresent my argument. Nobody is asking for confidential details of the OTRS complaint (Nobody has to, because the deleting admin already disclosed the reason for the complaint). So it boils down to one of two situations:
- This is a free, public domain, photo of Michelle Manhart - a subject of a Wikipedia article and a public figure who is apparently notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia currently has no other free image of this person to illustrate the article. In that case the photo would be suitable for illustration of the article Michelle Manhart.
- This is a free, public domain, photo of a person other than Michelle Manhart. In this case, I can't see any reason to delete the photo - even if not used as an agreed-upon photo for particular articles, it's certainly suitable for the Commons. Any reasonable person viewing this photo would agree that it couldn't possibly embarrass or demean anyone in any way.
- The deleting admin is a teenaged high school student who is currently on a Wikibreak and is not anwering any questions regarding this undiscussed deletion. All I have asked for is a review of this deletion per existing policy (and I include WP:IAR and WP:AGF as part of that policy) to ensure it was the best thing for Wikipedia. So far, nobody has admitted to getting the ticket number of the WP:OTRS complaint and reviewing to ensure it was a correct deletion. I remind all that WP:DRV is not nose-counting, but a review of policy application, and respectfully ask the admin closing this case to carefully review all facts of this deletion (including the original OTRS complaint) to ensure this case was handled correctly. Thanks - RJASE1 Talk 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- How is the fact that Jaranda is a 'teenaged high school student' relevant? --Docg 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not hugely relevent, only a contributing factor in my request that someone with experience review the complaint, that's all. I'm more concerned with the fact that Jaranda is not present to answer my concerns regarding this undiscussed deletion. Calm down. RJASE1 Talk 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be so bloody patronising - I am perfectly calm. It is you that is engaging in the ad hominem.--Docg 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- No ad hominem intended, as I stated in the comment immediately above yours. Are you going to address any of my other concerns? RJASE1 Talk 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. I suspect that a hypothetical decision to restore here would receive attention at the Foundation level, and I find the undue emphasis on this image to be inexplicable. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any particular reason for your suspicions? RJASE1 Talk 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just the fact that OTRS-based deletions or redactions are often based on factors not appropriate for discussion on-wiki and therefore often are not subject to on-wiki review. I have no information beyond the public record concerning this particular deletion. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, no valid reason to delete what seems like a perfectly good public domain image. If the Air Force is embarrassed about it, there's nothing to say that we'd have to use it in the articles where it was used before. Maybe it should just go on Commons? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|