Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:John Tunstall retouched.jpg

[edit]

Everything is doubtful here. See the final two sections of en:Talk:Billy the Kid (permalink) for detailed discussion: basically, this image claims to come from a collection of photos from a no-name web source, and the subject appears significantly differently from his appearance in well-attested images. Moreover, the source website admits that there's no provenance for these images: they bought them at an antique shop and don't have any solid knowledge of their origin. How can we trust that these people know that their identifications are correct? Per COM:SCOPE, we delete stuff that's not likely to be useful; knowledgeable people won't use dubious images, and we don't want less-knowledgeable people using dubious images without realising that they're dubious.

Two final notes: (1) This image isn't currently used at any project. (2) As noted at en:Talk:BtK, this image doesn't even appear at the alleged source website. It's bad enough to take an image from a dubious website, but even worse when you claim that you took something from a place that doesn't have it. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect that the photo isn't used. It is being used at the John Tunstall article on the en.wikipedia. Winkelvi (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The John Tunstall photograph is from the Phillips Collection. It was originally uploaded to Wiki with the correct license of Public Domain.

It is a circa 1875 albumen print photograph. The credibility of the collection is growing rapidly. See the Phillips Collection resume on my user page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The image is obviously of that era and is Public Domain.
Wow. Lots of non-agf going on here, Nyttend. Could you tone down the insults, please? I didn't claim anything about this photo other than it came from a photo already uploaded by someone else who said it was a photo of John Tunstall that was part of an authenticated and private old-west photo collection. Until someone can prove this photo IS NOT of John Tunstall, I can't see any valid reason why it should be deleted - whether it's being used at the moment or not. Winkelvi (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Winkelvi, I'm sorry that I offended you. I wasn't trying to claim that you'd done anything wrong; I was talking about the original image, which obviously is in the same situation as your derivative work. Obviously there's nothing uniquely wrong with this image and nothing wrong with the idea of you making a DW of the other one. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The website tells that the picture comes from an unknown source. Without information about the publication history of the image, we can't determine the copyright status of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright status? It's obviously a public domain photo at this point because of its age, isn't it? Winkelvi (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes it to be a work of the 19th century. Because the website mentions that they have no provenance whatsoever, we have no way to establish the accuracy of this claim, and anyway, where did this digital file come from? We accept statements such as "I scanned this image myself from a printed original" and "copied from http://www.example.com/tunstall.jpg", but if you claim that it came from a web source, you need to provide the file's URL and/or the URL of the page displaying the file. No such statement (of either sort) is given at this image's source, File:Tunstall wiki.JPG; we don't have reason to believe that this was taken from Phillips Collection's website, despite claims presented here and at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the so-called Phillips Collection of Texas Escapes Online is not authenticated, and this fact is even alluded to on that site in the essay, "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" by Cathleen Briley, already linked to above. She says, "Of course, questions immediately began to rise about the authenticity of the photos in the collection. What are the chances of someone finding a massive collection of extremely rare photos of incredibly famous people all at once? We grappled with that question ourselves. It seems so unbelievable. So, how can we have proof without provenance? Even though we have no record of previous ownership, the proof is in the pictures." Now, that's self-published original research, as well as patent nonsense if I ever saw it. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Susan Stevenson is a researcher for the top Billy the Kid author, Frederick Nolan. Susan agrees that it is a photograph of John Tunstall. Other people including professionals who have experience in identifying photographs also agree. An email from Susan Stevenson can be arranged. Susan is also a descendant of the Dolan and Fritz families from The Lincoln County War. She agrees we have photographs of her ancestors in the Phillips collection. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the Phillips Collection currently has no provenance. We have submitted the idea to finding out who the original collector was to PBS's History Detectives. We hope they accept the task. The collection is gaining its own credibility just from the photographs. See the collections impressive resume on my user page OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThere also may be a conflict of interest issue here as well, since, to bolster her case in her essay, Cathleen Briley actually refers to photos used in Wikipedia articles that were uploaded to the Commons by the user OSMOND PHILLIPS, who purportedly represents the "Phillips Collection" at Texas Escapes Online, and she even cites the respective Wikipedia articles. The uploader claims "The credibility of the collection is growing rapidly." It appears that the only "credibility" this image and others uploaded by that person have is the usage of those files by credulous editors on Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Phillips Collection resume with support from professionals can be seen here. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS

You don't have to say "keep" every time you comment, that's three times now. This "support" is very weak:
1. The Discovery Channel is not a reliable source, nor is someone "interested in doing a Billy The Kid film"
2. "Researcher" is a meaningless title, anyone off the street can call themselves a researcher.
3. The president of a historical society is not necessarily an authority, and film or TV producer is not an accreditation of expertise in historical photos.
4. Texas Escapes.com editor/owner John Troesser has an obvious conflict of intertest.
5. Arcadia Publishing and the History Press are not reliable sources. They are part of the same publishing house, and both solicit submissions by self-publishers of original research.
6. Wild West magazine is not a reliable source, neither is True West magazine, which is "interested in doing a future article on Billy the Kid after seeing our photo". (Well, there's a pecuniary incentive to upload these photos).
7. "User contributor BtPhelps said Phillips Collection may warrant its own page pending more credibility." (This is really grasping for straws).
8. American Cowboy magazine, Historynet.com, and New Mexico Magazine are not reliable sources.
9. "Descendants that agree we have their family photos." (Claimant descendants are notoriously unreliable.) Carlstak (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are historynet.com and The Discovery Channel not reliable sources, Carlstak? Wild West Magazine and True West Magazine, also not reliable sources according to... whom? Winkelvi (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are reliable sources or not is not the point. If you want the file to be kept, then you need to provide information about the publication history of the image which proves that the image is in the public domain, for example evidence of publication before 1923. Such information hasn't been provided. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan2, one only need to look at the photo for the clothing and hairstyle to see it is not from the 20th century. One only need to look at the quality, coloring, and type of photo it is (which is mentioned in the description) and realize that kind of photo processing (albumen) was used in the 19th, not the 20th, century. It's most certainly a pre-1923 photo. Winkelvi (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When was the image published? Remember that publication and creation are different, and the 1923 date is relevant only for something published before 1923. If it were taken in 1877 but not published until 1924, it's potentially still under copyright. If it weren't published at all until now, it's in the public domain, but the lack of provenance means that you can't prove that it wasn't published until now. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been in a private collection until recently, it hasn't been published at all, it would seem. Apparently, OSMOND PHILLIPS is the one to ask. Winkelvi (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the private collector get the photo? No proof of publication is given, to be sure, but perhaps it was published in a book post-1923. If it were published pre-1923, of course it's PD-US (e.g. the photographer distributed a sufficient number of copies), but it's entirely plausible that the collector's copy is developed from negatives that were later used for a book published in compliance with requirements for copyright. And still, this ignores the COM:SCOPE issue, being the issue of whether we can trust that this is really who the uploader says it is? The differences between this and authenticated images (the uploader having failed to provide proof of any of the claimed authentication), between this and provenance-known images, means that a knowledgeable person won't risk using it. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is obviously Public Domain. As to the issue of provenance, this debate is about whether the image is actually of Tunstall. That same debate is already going on over here and should be addressed there. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not a picture of Tunstall, then it was possibly not created at the time when Tunstall was alive. It could have been created a lot later. If it is a picture of Tunstall, then it is probably in the public domain, but the stupid copyright law of the United States makes it very difficult to prove that something is in the public domain. There was a discussion at COM:VP last year about Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. Everyone assumed that Mona Lisa is in the public domain in the United States, but no one could prove it. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: We need to know provenance -- there are too many questions here and too many supports with COI problems. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:John_Tunstall_retouched.jpg&oldid=185595881"