Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crowley and Gates.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Crowley_and_Gates.jpg

Close cropping of both photos constitutes WP:OI. In particular, the James Crowley photo absent of the context makes him look like he's scowling: juxtaposed with Gates photos created a new composite meaning. Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment It is probably better to use en:Template:Double image instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is used in an infobox; the double image template doesn't work there. --Jayen466 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A link to "WP:OI": en:WP:OI. --Túrelio (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see such a violation. To my mind, the expressions on both Crowley's and Gates's faces are reasonably matched in their neutrality. I suppose Crowley does appears to be concentrating on something in the shot. (Note that an identical expression is in both cropped and uncropped pix, so the cropping changes nothing.) Whereas I suppose Gates does look like he's pondering something, with his about to address the same. (Or perhaps I read this into the shot, knowing that it was taken of Gates in the midst of a scholarly lecture.) Nevertheless in my personal opinion, to make the claim that some kind of subtle message is being delivered through the juxtaposition of the slightly varied "looks of concentration" borders on the absurd. (Hey, perhaps photographraphers could have subjects fill out questionaires on their inner thoughts and have this posted along with the shots? Sitter: "I was thinking of my true love." Viewer: "Ah, that explains the evocative, soft aspect of the sitter's portrait!" -- However, I don't think the lack of providing the context that Crowley's concentration was on clinking his beer mug in a toast makes for a case of WP:OI.)Justmeherenow (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would additionally note that the arrangement of these images is odd. In the English language, text is read left to right. With multiple images, the same has been proven to be true; they are viewed from left to right. However, this photograph that this double image is culled from presents as Gates, then Crowley, and then Obama. How odd that the image would be specifically crafted to present the white guy first, despite the article being about the black guy. Hmm. - Arcayne (talk)`

• Proposed finessing of the image most properly belongs on the image's talkpage rather than seeming to be proffered as grounds for the image's deletion, especially cos this particular objection could easily be satisfied through a minor modification and re-upload of the file. (And I appreciate the idea of having Gates on the left, since Gates lends his name to the article the image is being used at. (Nevertheless, do note that Gates's portrait was not culled from shots taken at the famous White House beer summit at all.))Justmeherenow (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• As for the left and right, you guys had it like that in the article before I made up the image: [1]. I couldn't get the double image template to display correctly within the infobox, so I joined the two images together. I don't think that's creating a new composite meaning. Lots of news agencies created similar composites: [2][3]. FWIW, most of these seem to have Crowley on the left, perhaps a subconscious cause-and-effect thing. I do wish Crowley had less of a scowl in ours, but then some of the composites out there on google images don't exactly have him smiling either. --Jayen466 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd point out that this it has been brought up in the wiki-en article as being a possible vio of OI; the images culled have been taken from non-free images, and therefore cannot be technically called free. I am having some difficulty wrapping my head around how this image could even be a WikiCommons image int he first place - unless the photographer of both photos has released the rights to the images. I am presuming that that has not happened, right? - Arcayne (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Crowley image is PD, but the Gates photo is not. The link to FLickr shows that "some rights reserved". We may be able have it on Wikipedia under fair use, but not here.Mattnad (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gates image is on Commons cos it is licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0"; and Commons is set up so that when ya click on it, attribution is given to its copyright holder, its photographer, the scholar Jon Irons. See Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses: "The following well-known licenses are preferred for materials on Commons: * Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses * [etc. ...]." (Note that Creative Commons says wrt its Attribution license: "This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.")

Furthermore, see where Irons comments in the discussion of the image on Flickr: "I've changed the license on the photo, I think it's usable for Wikipedia now. Let me know if there are any problems."Justmeherenow (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No violation. We crop images all the time and there is generally some loss of context in the process. That's not enough to trigger OI. As for the left vs right issue, I support the switch (which should not be taken as criticism of the original creation). But switching them them does not require this IFD action. If needed, a renaming can be done as a housekeeping move. I would also point out that this image was created for use in the info box at w:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident to replace File:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. mugshot.jpg, a far more highly charged image that has generated great controversy on the article talk page. --agr (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  cmt: I am very glad to hear that; the mugshot image has caused serious edit warring and a lengthy discussion on the BLP noticeboard in addition to the article talk page. KillerChihuahua (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't complain about ppl coming here to discuss WP matters since we appear to be going through the motions, for some reason, of discussing whether a Commons image is original research, per Wikipedia guidelines (viz "expressing an editorial POV not found in, say, the component news photos an image is composed from"). However, any discussion of this issue is moot in this forum, in any case. I could upload to Commons images of Democrats onto which I've drawn horns, tails, and pitchforks, intended to be used on Republican websites -- and vice versa -- all day, everday, as long as these editorial opinion images are accompanied by the proper licensure. (Cf, eg File:Sarah Palin, Queen of Pork.jpg, also originally posted to Flickr with a "Some Rights Reserved" Creative Commons Attribution license.) Commons is not Wikipedia. Justmeherenow (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• SPEEDY CLOSE as  Keep. Only licensure concerns mater on Commons; and WP:OI is a non-rationale for deletion in this venue.

  Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites.---COMMONS:Project scope/Neutral point of view

Justmeherenow (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE I've posted the following notice over on the English Wikipedia's NOR/Noticeboard.

  Canvassing here for your comments at a deletion discussion on Commons. Note that what follows is what is hoped is an entirely neutrally worded notice per the guidelines at WP:CANVASSING. Hey, people, there is an actual image that happens to be on Commons right now that has, in fact, been described by some as presenting an unacceptable level of original research through its composition. This image has been nominated for deletion from Commons, with its deletion discussion [here [...link...]] -- to which any interested editors are invited to contribute. Thanks.

  Justmeherenow (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the fact that there are two portraits in the same frame isn't necessarily OR.

But I recommend that the composite be split. For one, there is no outstanding reason why two portraits have to be in the same frame. For another, articles then have the flexibility to decide whether they want only one, or both, and if both how to frame the two. -- 95.116.133.219 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• SPEEDY CLOSE - WP:OI does not apply here and the rationale presented is therefore invalid. Is there a *licensing* issue? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept, there's no COM:OI here, after 8 days no licensing issue has been presented. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)