Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sharon Tate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sharon Tate
This is a self nomination. Have had this on Peer Review for nearly a month and it seems to have attracted as much comment as its likely to. Peer review archive. I have addressed the issue of the referencing of the article. Rossrs 14:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Reluctantly object, I'm afraid. The consensus that articles for the main page require a picture, and that those pictures must be public domain, GDFL, or anything other than fair use. These criteria operate to exclude most twentieth century biography, which suggests to me that the consensus merits revision, but as things stand now I doubt it could be promoted. Smerdis of Tlön 17:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have removed several of the images, and as there seem to be no free images available, this is as close as I can come to resolving this objection. In this regard, the article is in line with numerous other recently promoted and/or featured articles. Rossrs 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fair use pictures have been used on the main page for featured articles in the past; likewise, articles have been promoted to featured status knowing they were not fit for the main page, so your argument does not stand. Phils 18:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's heartening that your objection is reluctant. I disagree that there is a consensus, and if there is, it is not recorded on Wikipedia:What is a featured article or its talk page. There have been several articles promoted over the last few months that have only fair use images, and these have also been featured on the main page. Obviously I don't monitor every single article, but there are several that have gone through a very lengthy process, and in relation to the ones I've looked at, nobody has said a thing about there being a problem with the images. User:Phils mentions that this has been "in the past" - I would just add that it's been in the "recent" past. Rossrs 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. Excellent work. I've worked with Rossrs in the past and quality work like this increases my admiration for him. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thank you PS. That's a really nice comment!! Rossrs 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The article has no images under a free license. Admittedly, this is a subject where it is hard to find images, and one where fair-use images can be justified, but we really need at least one image with a freer license than "fair use". --Carnildo 19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have removed several of the images, and as there seem to be no free images available, this is as close as I can come to resolving this objection. In this regard, the article is in line with numerous other recently promoted and/or featured articles. Rossrs 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. To quote the FA guidelines "an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." (emphasis in original) It's a good article that stands on its own. Why the pictures should lead to its defeat is a mystery. PedanticallySpeaking 19:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Item #1 on "What is a featured article" is "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". One of those things that is unique about Wikipedia is that it is a free content encyclopedia: among other things, people are free to take Wikipedia content and create derivative works from it. The inclusion in articles of images that are not under a free-use license keep that from happening. --Carnildo 21:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Also on Wikipedia:What is a featured article - "images with acceptable copyright". There is nothing on the page to define what is "acceptable", nor is there anything on the talk page. It's obviously a question of interpretation - my interpretation is vastly different to yours. I don't see this as a grey issue. If it's fair it's fair and can be used, if it's not fair, it can't be used on any page, featured potential or not. I don't see how the inclusion of a free use image to a page containing fair use images, somehow elevates it to a more "acceptable" level. Also you say that "the inclusion of images that are not under a free-use licence keep that from happening", so if that was correct, no featured article could contain any fair use images or they could potentially cause the problem that you describe. The images are by Wikidepia's own defintion, "acceptable" - that is, they are "fair use". They are genuinely "fair use" by using the Wikipedia 10 point criteria, and are all either screenshots or book covers. They are all correctly tagged. Wikipedia is not claiming freedom of copyright, and this tag is viewable by anyone who looks. It's not right to say they are acceptable for Wikipedia as long as they are kept hidden in pages other than featured articles. I spent a long time poring over the guidelines before I submitted this and I couldn't find anything that suggested a problem. I expect nominations to be challenged or opposed, and I have no problem with that, but only on grounds that are stated in the policy guidelines. The guidelines as they stand now don't support your viewpoint, however if I've missed something, please let me know where I should be looking. Rossrs
- I've found this statement and this email by Jimbo Wales to be rather informative on what image licenses are acceptable. --Carnildo 03:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate the quick response. He says that fair use images are a grey area which is not saying that they are unacceptable, although clearly that is his viewpoint. I'm annoyed that I've spent a lot of time working on this article, and in good faith have referred to things like Wikipedia:What is a featured article, thinking that because it was Wikipedia's official policy, it was the best and most reliable source of information, and have abided by what is written there. Have a look at how many articles have recently been promoted (and by recent I mean in the last few months) to Featured Article status, even though they contain nothing but "fair use" images. ie screenshots, album covers, book covers etc. And not a single objection in relation to the images, during their peer review or featured article processes, and many of them have appeared on the main page as Article of the Day complete with the "fair use" image. Wikipedia:Copyrights says in part "In cases where no such [free use] images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)". - (my italics). Until the policy pages are rewritten I should be able to have faith in them. Rossrs 08:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't disagree; but in practice, FAC seems to have developed a body of unwritten policies. One is that the articles must have a picture under a "free licence." Another is that FAC operates under the principle of liberum veto. I could see monopoly-franchise based objections coming. If there is a consensus to reject either of these unwritten policies, perhaps that too could be made explicit. Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with unwritten policies is that any application of them can really be left to the whim of people voting, unlike written policies that are very explicit. Liberum veto - well in this instance I can see it being used correctly and with good intentions, but with other nominations I've seen it used to impose someone's POV which is not a good thing, but it seems to work mostly. I am genuinely surprised - having seen so many articles with exactly the same type of fair use images, go through peer review, fac, and then onto the main page without incident. I thought any criticism here would be about the text and that the images were fine. I'll stop bleating on about this before it becomes boring, but I can't replace the images - there are no free use images for virtually any celebrity, this one included, so will just have to see how this pans out. Rossrs 14:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- The differences between formal rules and informal customs intrigue me; especially in situations where formal, public rules don't in fact predict actual decisions, and the unwritten rules are the rules you really need to know. Here we have that in a microcosm. Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with unwritten policies is that any application of them can really be left to the whim of people voting, unlike written policies that are very explicit. Liberum veto - well in this instance I can see it being used correctly and with good intentions, but with other nominations I've seen it used to impose someone's POV which is not a good thing, but it seems to work mostly. I am genuinely surprised - having seen so many articles with exactly the same type of fair use images, go through peer review, fac, and then onto the main page without incident. I thought any criticism here would be about the text and that the images were fine. I'll stop bleating on about this before it becomes boring, but I can't replace the images - there are no free use images for virtually any celebrity, this one included, so will just have to see how this pans out. Rossrs 14:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't disagree; but in practice, FAC seems to have developed a body of unwritten policies. One is that the articles must have a picture under a "free licence." Another is that FAC operates under the principle of liberum veto. I could see monopoly-franchise based objections coming. If there is a consensus to reject either of these unwritten policies, perhaps that too could be made explicit. Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate the quick response. He says that fair use images are a grey area which is not saying that they are unacceptable, although clearly that is his viewpoint. I'm annoyed that I've spent a lot of time working on this article, and in good faith have referred to things like Wikipedia:What is a featured article, thinking that because it was Wikipedia's official policy, it was the best and most reliable source of information, and have abided by what is written there. Have a look at how many articles have recently been promoted (and by recent I mean in the last few months) to Featured Article status, even though they contain nothing but "fair use" images. ie screenshots, album covers, book covers etc. And not a single objection in relation to the images, during their peer review or featured article processes, and many of them have appeared on the main page as Article of the Day complete with the "fair use" image. Wikipedia:Copyrights says in part "In cases where no such [free use] images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)". - (my italics). Until the policy pages are rewritten I should be able to have faith in them. Rossrs 08:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've found this statement and this email by Jimbo Wales to be rather informative on what image licenses are acceptable. --Carnildo 03:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Also on Wikipedia:What is a featured article - "images with acceptable copyright". There is nothing on the page to define what is "acceptable", nor is there anything on the talk page. It's obviously a question of interpretation - my interpretation is vastly different to yours. I don't see this as a grey issue. If it's fair it's fair and can be used, if it's not fair, it can't be used on any page, featured potential or not. I don't see how the inclusion of a free use image to a page containing fair use images, somehow elevates it to a more "acceptable" level. Also you say that "the inclusion of images that are not under a free-use licence keep that from happening", so if that was correct, no featured article could contain any fair use images or they could potentially cause the problem that you describe. The images are by Wikidepia's own defintion, "acceptable" - that is, they are "fair use". They are genuinely "fair use" by using the Wikipedia 10 point criteria, and are all either screenshots or book covers. They are all correctly tagged. Wikipedia is not claiming freedom of copyright, and this tag is viewable by anyone who looks. It's not right to say they are acceptable for Wikipedia as long as they are kept hidden in pages other than featured articles. I spent a long time poring over the guidelines before I submitted this and I couldn't find anything that suggested a problem. I expect nominations to be challenged or opposed, and I have no problem with that, but only on grounds that are stated in the policy guidelines. The guidelines as they stand now don't support your viewpoint, however if I've missed something, please let me know where I should be looking. Rossrs
-
- Support. Well written, very comprehensive. I don't think the image issue is a valid criteria for objection, Wikipedia:What is a featured article says "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status". IMHO, fair use is an "acceptable copyright status" for this article, because like many 20/21th celebrities, there may well be no public domain images of Sharon Tate that are readily available. There certainly aren't any that are available on the internet. On this page, a photogallery for a Sharon Tate fansite, there is a notice that says "Sharon Tate's name, image, likeness, signature and voice is controlled by Debra Tate. Please contact us if you feel there's misuse of Sharon Tate's image. Misuse would be: other sites profiting from Sharon's image or displaying her in such a way that would be offensive to Sharon's family, friends and fans." There's an email address that's provided to apply for permission to use Sharon Tate in "Media, TV, Newspaper, Magazine, Promotional". This article is certainly not misusing Sharon Tate's image, and since Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation, under these terms Sharon Tate's estate appears to be content for images of her to be reproduced. Deus Ex 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. I know the website has the information about getting permission to use images, however these would still not be "fair use", as to let us use them would in effect mean that the copyright on them would be relinquished, and there's no way they'd let that happen. Basically as a free content encyclopedia we could not make use of "permission only" images. :-) Rossrs 08:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The lack of fair use pictures is indeed a concern, and too many fair use pictures in one article is never good. I suggest simply cutting back on the number of photographs. Phils 09:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the suggestion. I've trimmed the number of images from 13 to 8. I think it looks better actually - so it's now one image for each section except the fairly long "Movie career" section which has two, plus the image for the lead paragraph. I removed everything that I thought was superfluous or did not add anything in particular to the article. The ones that remain, I think, help tell the story and are relevant. I'm glad you suggested it. Do you think it's ok now? Rossrs 13:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support now that the image count has been reduced. —RaD Man (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support - ignoring the pictures, the text is great. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support very well done --Sophitus 18:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very well written, structured, researched and cited. Have you considered contacting the Tate family to see if they are willing to donate a picture or a few under a free license? Under the circumstances and for the sake of her legacy, they may be willing. - Taxman Talk 19:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
-
- thank you. I think the article is quite respectful to her memory and should not displease her family (specifically Debra Tate who is the only surviving immediate family member), but I've read elsewhere that Debra Tate who holds copyright to Sharon Tate's image, is very protective of any kind of "merchandising" particularly with regards to images. Because we can't use a "with permission only" image, the only option would be if the copyright was "donated" to us, and from what I've read I don't think they would be willing. I haven't asked though. I also think donating would be difficult because obviously the number of Sharon Tate photographs is finite.
- You may be surprised. Since Wikipedia is non profit and the license guarantees that it remains free, they may be willing. The fact that it is free to be mirrored by commercial interests may be the sticking point you're right, but it is worth a shot. Yes they would have to be willing to donate a scan of the picture under GFDL or CC, but a scan certainly wouldn't matter on the finite number of pictures issue. - Taxman Talk 15:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- thank you. I think the article is quite respectful to her memory and should not displease her family (specifically Debra Tate who is the only surviving immediate family member), but I've read elsewhere that Debra Tate who holds copyright to Sharon Tate's image, is very protective of any kind of "merchandising" particularly with regards to images. Because we can't use a "with permission only" image, the only option would be if the copyright was "donated" to us, and from what I've read I don't think they would be willing. I haven't asked though. I also think donating would be difficult because obviously the number of Sharon Tate photographs is finite.
