Talk:Ron Stallworth

Photo

Ron Stallworth in 1969, at Austin High School, El Paso, Texas, doing a jump in cheerleader tryouts, scanned from the 1970 Round Up, his junior-year annual.

I added this photo from Stallworth's high-school yearbook (for which I was the head photographer that year), and User:Amsgearing removed it, with summary non-sensical to use an unverified high school cheerleading photo for a guy known for a career in law enforcement. He has not responded to my query on his talk page about how this is "unverified" or why it's nonsensical to use a public-domain image of him on an article with no images. I put it back, he removed it again, wanting to discuss here, while ignoring the discussion I started, so here we are. By the way, before I uploaded the image, I checked with Stallworth to see if he cared one way or the other, and he said go ahead. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This would all be great - if it was verifiable. I don't have a copy of the yearbook, and I don't know of anywhere online where we could view the entire thing. I'm not saying it isn't real, but a cornerstone of Wikipedia is verifiability, and there's nothing stopping anyone from grabbing a random picture and labeling it with a subject's name and claiming it's from their yearbook. As for "I checked with Stallworth to see if he cared one way or the other, and he said go ahead" - well, maybe you did. But how would anyone know that for sure? What's stopping me from saying "I asked Stallworth about this and he said he was never a cheerleader in high school"? Because this is a BLP, that pic has to be vierifiable, and even if it was, is it really appropriate to make the main picture on the subject's page a cheerleading picture, when he's known for being a police officer? No, it isn't. Amsgearing (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to look at my copy (or someone in Silicon Valley can come visit me to have a look; or I can ask a fellow Wikipedian at work to look and certify that I'm not making this up), or drop in at Austin High School and look at their copy. Or I can scan that whole page and others for you; email me. Anyway, verifiable it is, whether that's easy for you to see or not. I'm not asking anyone to rely on my private exchange with Stallworth; I just mention that in case anyone thinks he might prefer that that picture not be used to represent him; that's why I offered him the choice; connect with him on LinkedIn and ask yourself if you think I'm pulling your leg. Dicklyon (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those options are how Wikipedia works. See WP:VERIFY for a list of your options. Amsgearing (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, while you're reading, also check out MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Specifically, the part the says "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone." Obviously the cheerleading jump doesn't qualify, even if we could verify that it's really Ron Stallworth. Amsgearing (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability comes from it being in a published book, which it is. What are suggesting at WP:VERIFY that I need to do beyond verifying that it's in the book? As to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, perhaps you missed where it says "When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." Personally, I think this photo says something about who he was, just a few years before he became a police officer; he was very at ease operating in a mostly white and Hispanic environment for one thing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, there's no way to verify, currently, that that's really Ron Stallworth, and that's the problem. No, "Verifiability" is not simply "from it being in a published book"; it's not that easy, and I know you want it to be, because that would serve your purpose, but you can't will a rule into existence. As for ""When possible, find better images", that's trumped by the guideline that's specifically about biographical pages, which this is. If you want to continue this argument, I have to tell you that i find your current arguments unconvincing, and you'll have to seek out advice from someone else at this point. Amsgearing (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. 22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Use of Yearbook Photo):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Ron Stallworth and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

First WP:V is obviously important but the claim the yearbook photo is making is that it is a yearbook photo of Stallworth as a cheerleader. Is the yearbook a reliable source for whether it says that Stallworth is a cheerleader? Yes. It is not a reliable source in general but for this particular claim can be seen as RS. The fact that a source is difficult to obtain for many editors for whatever reason isn't a legitimate reason not to use a source. That said I still wouldn't include the picture on this page. It's not a great photo of him, his time in High School is mentioned only in passing (and right fully so given why he's notable), and it's not representative of him as an adult. Given that there are currently no other photos if it were a good head-on shot of him in HS then maybe it would belong, but overall despite enjoying the photograph, I agree it doesn't belong on this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

So his headshot from the same volume might be preferable, even though it's boring? Or the photo of him posing with the student council group maybe? Or the one where he's actually cheerleading at a football game (but that one doesn't have his name in the caption)? Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes in my thinking a headshot is more likely to add some illustrative value to the article for the reader. Again if we can get either a modern or historically licensed photo that would supplant the high school yearbook shot - which really should be a last resort - but that's the circumstance we're in. But really only if it can be made reasonable decent in terms of image quality at the size we'd need it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned here by a notice at MOS/SomethingOrOther. There's no OR problem -- a yearbook is a reliable source for something like this, as long as there's no reason to doubt that this is right Ron Stallworth (by matching know biographical data). No opinion on relevance. EEng 22:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support use of the yearbook portrait headshot, but Oppose the use of the cheerleading jump photo as it is irrelevant to his notabilty, and quite distracting, in my opinion. Dicklyon, since you have communicated with him through LinkedIn, please consider asking him for a freely licensed contemporary portrait photo. It could even be a selfie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Which photo of Ron Stallworth?

Given the comments above, is there a better choice for what photo to use on the Ron Stallworth article? The only ones we know of are from this high-school annual. 03:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are some more pages, snapped with my cell phone, including an index page and a couple that show that I was photographer for this. Can we pick a better image to use? I will then get a good scan. Note that none of this was ever copyrighted, and it was published before 1977, so is public domain. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this really the best we can do? Is there not one picture of Ron Stallworth from the years 1972 to 2018 anywhere?? Come on, people. Amsgearing (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard to find photos of him online, but getting one that's public domain or licensable is not generally easy. So I realized I had some... Dicklyon (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's not a great solution. Just because we HAVE a public domain photo, doesn't mean we SHOULD use that public domain photo. Until a more relevant photo is found, no photo is the better option. Amsgearing (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is where we disagree; understood. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the options thus far, I suggest we don't include an image at this time. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel that the image I chose is not a good thing to add to the image, especially in light of Ron telling me it's OK with him? Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

1) You telling us "Ron said it's okay" is meaningless. 2) See my previous pointer to the Wikipedia policy on main images for bio pages. 3) He's known for being a police detective, not a cheerleader. Amsgearing (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I realize that the subject's consent is of no particular importance to Wikipedia, but it was to me; I didn't want to upload a photo that he would not like, which is why I reached out to him. I'm not asking anyone to rely on that information, just thought it might be worth sharing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sharing is great. But it's relevance we're after. It's not relevant. Amsgearing (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the headshot from the yearbook seems fine, most appropriate as a lead image, I don't think the cheerleading photo is appropiate as a lead image - lead images aren't chosen for interestingness but to depict the person. WP:V is fine since there is no requirement that a source be easily accessible Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• A high school headshot would fit well in the 'Early life' section. Or maybe one of those two-images-in-one deals using the headshot first and then the cheerleading image in question, with a single caption summarizing his high school years and activities. Neither are probably ideal for an infobox lead image, but down-the-page use seems reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think having the only pictures of him in the article come from a high school yearbook would be appropriate. Especially as the events in his life that make him notable all came long after high school. Amsgearing (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is a duo-box image, with a caption underneath running full length. So the head picture and cheerleading acrobats could be counted as one image. Some images seem better than no image, and at some point another editor will also think a more up-to-date image is needed and make an effort to find one. Dicklyon, maybe, if you're in contact with the page subject, you can ask him for a few images to upload. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

He's not exactly a bud, just a brief exchange as 3rd-order connection on LinkedIn. Anyone else could reach out as I did and ask for a licensed photo, I suppose. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Some images seem better than no image" - no, that's not true at all. And MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE disagree with that assessment as well. Amsgearing (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the source is agreed to be OK, and there's an expressed preference to lead with the head shot, I did that. Randy, if you want to try the "duo box" layout instead, feel free. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The only person who "expressed preference to lead with the head shot" was you. It's not appropriate to lead with a high school yearbook picture, period. Amsgearing (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was Galobtter who wrote "Using the headshot from the yearbook seems fine, most appropriate as a lead image...". Randy supported using the pictures, too, not necessarily in the lead. Why do you have such a problem with using these images? Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The headshot seems fine as the lead image. Stallworth looks quite mature in it, unlike the images in my high school yearbook, which is what I was thinking of when questioning its use. Other images may emerge at some point, but for now this one illustrates the page well. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Re-addition of photo without consensus

Regarding the addition of a yearbook photo as the lead image (and a non-sensical addition of a high school cheerleading photo from the same yearbook) by Dicklyon and Randy Kryn: it's been claimed by both users that the discussion on this page justifies the inclusion of the image. This is an outright falsehood. While it's true 2 users seem to want the inappropriate photos included, one of them (Randy Kryn) was summoned to this discussion by Dicklyon (the original uploader) with this edit, which could be seen as a violation of WP:CANVAS. Additionally, editor Barkeep49 (talk) stated "I agree it doesn't belong on this page", editor Meatsgains^(talk) stated, "Given the options thus far, I suggest we don't include an image at this time", and I also agree that the image is inappropriate, given that his time in high school is barely mentioned, and it's not what he's notable for (paraphrasing Barkeep there).

In any case, given that short discussion, there's no way anyone can claim that consensus says "include the images". I'm removing the images. I would appreciate if the tag-team of Dicklyon and Randy Kryn refrains from adding the images again without discussion. Amsgearing (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been no good reason not to include the image. As for tag-team, once I comment on a page like this I keep it on my watchlist for awhile, and come back if needed, so please assume good faith. Please put the images back unless you have a policy or strict guideline reason not to do so, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is a pretty clear policy that disagrees with you. Amsgearing (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and your link seems to uphold the use of the image. The MOS page reads "When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." So yes, pretty clear policy (or guideline). If the image was totally inappropriate I'd agree with you, but in this case the high school photo seems fine even though not the best possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my side for a change, Randy. We be a "tag team" now! I might be able to get a slightly better photo (bigger, one year newer) from his senior-year yearbook, if my bro Jim will ever come through with a scan for me. There are some other photos of him there worth considering, too. Certainly these pix from within 10 years of his most notable activities seem more relevant than something we'd get now, 40 years after. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted; however, it's not constructive, and doesn't change the fact that the two of you agreeing on a yearbook photo that one of you dug out of his own yearbook, while the other was summoned to this discussion by the first, does NOT equal consensus, since multiple editors disagreed with your additions. Conduct an RfC if you feel that strongly about changing what was a stable version of the page before you starting littering it with cheerleading photos. Amsgearing (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked Randy for his opinion, even though we usually are on opposite sides of style issues, because I know he has a strong interest in topics related to black people and civil rights. I respect his opinion. I don't understand yours. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You clearly don't respect Wikipedia policy, though, as you continue to revert, in the face of consensus on this talk page which is against adding a yearbook photo. Amsgearing (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading the consensus the other way, especially since the MOS language you pointed out reads "When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." That language seems to explicitly agree with the continued use of the high school photo as the first image, until a better one is uploaded. An RfC would only confirm that once that MOS language is made clear to participants. Dicklyon, I've agreed with you many times, and the point you make above about the image being closer chronologically to the subjects most notable time period than any recent photo adds weight to the current use of the image (now removed again in a slow-motion edit war). Amsgearing, is setting the use of high school photos as a precedent the thing that you disagree with? Like Dicklyon, I don't understand your objection to the lede image, especially with the MOS language above taken into into consideration. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"An RfC would only confirm that once that MOS language is made clear to participants" - if this is true, why not start an RfC? Meanwhile, respect WP:CYCLE and leave the page as it was, until you actually have consensus to add this inappropriate yearbook picture. Amsgearing (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We already did the RFC. Here is the state of it just before the expired RFC tag was removed. I agree with Randy that the use of headshot seems to be preferred; and your original objection about "verifiability" was a non-issue to most editors. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think I see the problem - bad maths. Amsgearing, in the recent revert, said there were three editors opposing the headpicture and two in favor. This is just bad maths. The count above is six in favor of allowing it and two opposed. Amsgearing is just reading it incorrectly. Please count again by reading all of the statements all the way through. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't act like "verifiability" was my only objection; you know full well that's not the case. But let me spell it out again: Myself and other editors agreed that a high school yearbook photo is not an appropriate lead image for an article about a police officer whose notability is entirely based on his law enforcement career and, later, his notable book that was made into a movie. This is per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There's not even a section about his high school years in the article at all. You claim to have contact with the subject; why not just ask him for a current picture, or an old one of him in uniform, instead of being so attached to "your" picture that you scanned yourself? Amsgearing (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

By what copyright theory would you expect a person to have licensable or PD images of themself from 40 years ago? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about using a high school yearbook photo as the lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a photo of Ron Stallworth from his high school yearbook be used as the lead image for the article? Amsgearing (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ron Stallworth
Stallworth as a high school junior, from his 1970 yearbook
Born	(1953-06-18) June 18, 1953 Chicago, Illinois, U.S.
Occupation	Police officer (retired)
Known for	Infiltration of the KKK Author of memoir Black Klansman Portrayal in BlacKkKlansman

Votes

• No - It's an inappropriate image for an encyclopedia article about a subject whose notability comes from his career in law enforcement, and to a lesser extent, his career as an author post-law-enforcement. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" and "Poor-quality images... should not be used." Amsgearing (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes – the image is relevant and of sufficient quality, so until we have something better there's no reason to object to it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (if we're doing this over again, per WP:GROUNDHOGDAY) per WP:IMAGERELEVANCE, which states "When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals". The yearbook image seems fine, and, as Dicklyon says somewhere in the above discussions, it is only 10 years removed from the subject's most notable accomplishments, so is in the chronological ballpark. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• No - Lead images are not required. The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye; it's not representative of him as an adult or his career in law-enforcement, and is irrelevant to his notabilty. There's not any mention of where he attended high school in this article or even what high school he graduated from. His early life section consists of two sentences and a quote from his book. It's also of inferior quality for a lead image. This picture of him is the most closely associated and representative of him. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• No too early in his life Atlantic306 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• No like the other voters said, too early, and that bit added about high school looks like a made-up award on some guy's personal website about an alumni association, so I took that out too, if anyone has a problem with it, feel free to revert it but I think this is mostly about a personal beef between amsgearing and dicklyon at this point. Both editors should recuse themselves from this article's discussions. ArchieOof (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• No Far too early. It is his working career that he is notable for, and the image should be from that period. scope_creep (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Alternatives: Why do so many people seem to prefer airing opinions than finding solutions? Here are some simple thoughts and considerations:
  • Are there any alternative ("more appropriate") images available? If so, use them. If not (and I could find none within Wikipedia), then please take action and submit one.
  • Do we even need an image for Ron Stallworth? Many biographical entries go without.
  • Bottom line: please focus on practical steps to resolve.Aboudaqn (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The current picture looks like a bromide print, gone bad. Not particularly attractive and it should be removed. scope_creep (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Probably it was originally printed on Kodabromide F or similar, and then it was halftoned for the press, and then (a half century later) scanned in at 600 dpi and massaged a bit in Photoshot. I'm sure it could be done better, especially if you say what about it you see as "gone bad". Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• No - The image is too old/early to include. We need to find a more recent picture. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note - we already did an RFC on this, above. Here is it's state just before the RFC tag expired and was removed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, let's explain that that was not the same discussion, as it also involved a picture of Stallworth (from the same yearbook) doing a cheerleading jump, and it ended with not much participation and without clear consensus anyway, except that most people felt the cheerleading photo was not relevant. Amsgearing (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It also rejected your proposition that an image from a yearbook was unacceptable, and a majority of respondents were happy enough with the headshot, even before I made the high-res scan of it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization at best, and a flat-out lie at worst. Your obsession with adding this photo is really starting to seem like WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Enough already. Amsgearing (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please say what you think the truth is. I see Dicklyon, Randy Kryn, Galobtter, Barkeep49, and Cullen328 being OK with the headshot (that's 5); not necessarily as lead image though. I see Amsgearing and Meatsgains against it (perhaps I missed someone). Furthermore, explicitly rejecting your premise that "verifiability" is a problem, I see also Barkeep49 and EEng; nobody supported your idea that there was a problem there. Now I see you're challenging the images on copyright grounds; I doubt you'll see any support for that, either, given the US copyright law as summarized at COM:HIRTLE. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

For Aboudaqn (talk) and his questions above: Yes, I agree that anyone that really thinks an image is 100% necessary should take action and find a better image. However, the backstory here is that Dicklyon was a member of the yearbook staff in 1970 and appears to be emotionally attached to adding "his" picture (as he said himself, "I made the high-res scan of it.") Thus, he is pushing hard to add the photo anywhere he feels he can, despite consensus obviously being against him. Amsgearing (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is taking the position that an image is 100% necessary; that's a silly strawman. I take and upload 100 or more images per year. This subject is rather different, though, since the image was in my deep archive (I had to go dig out the annual after seeing the movie, to recall what Stallworth looked like back then; I didn't know him). I don't have much emotional involvement here, other than annoyance at Amsgearing for his obnoxious reverting without even reading edit summaries or correctly estimating the support in the first RFC. I have taken the advice of his second RFC and not used either image as a lead image. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop characterizing the original discussion, which was not the same question, as a proper RfC, which is clearly wasn't. Read WP:RFC: "Statement should be neutral and brief". It wasn't. It also didn't include a vote section. It also wasn't publicized properly, which this RfC was, which is why we're actually getting a good sampling of opinions on this RfC. You also didn't follow WP:RFCEND in any way; you simply took it upon yourself to keep adding a pair of inappropriate pictures. In short, you don't like the results of an actual RfC, so you're continuing to point to something that wasn't an RfC, in which you canvassed for help from RandyKryn to support your opinion, and not surprisingly, you're the only two that support the inclusion of the inappropriate picture now. You don't like the result, I get it. But you still have to accept it. Amsgearing (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know there were different kinds of RFCs, some "proper" and some not. The question was "Given the comments above, is there a better choice for what photo to use on the Ron Stallworth article?" which seems neutral and brief enough. It was advertised in the usual way, in listing of RFCs on biographies; if you advertised yours better, tell me how, so I'll learn something. You don't like the result, I get it. But you still have to accept it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There's RfCs and there's discussions that are not RfCs. Right now an RfC is going on. The previous discussion was not an RfC. That's pretty straightforward. Also, you left out the fact that you said "Given the comments above, is there a better choice for what photo to use on the Ron Stallworth article? The only ones we know of are from this high-school annual." then immediately followed that with 4 more sentences supporting your position. That's not a neutral brief statement. Also, there was no "result", no uninvolved party closed the RfC, because it wasn't an RfC. You can't accept that an actual RfC is in favor of going with no picture, and you don't like it because the picture is from "your" yearbook. That's why you enlisted Randykryn to help you, because you know, deep down, this is an inappropriate picture for this article and that's how the majority of the community will see it. Your edit warring to get your way is not good editing. It's not like you haven't been blocked before for this attitude - I count 10 blocks in that list. 10!!!!! I can't recall seeing that many on any other user's record. It's amazing they still let you edit here. Amsgearing (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain how my RFC that was tagged as an RFC was not an RFC? Typically, RFCs do not get "closed", they just expire. I don't understand what you're saying above; what was the reason you think I asked Randy Kryn's opinion? Because it was my yearbook? Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I explained it clearly above. Meanwhile, you chose to not address the fact that you've been blocked 10 times for edit warring. What was the reason for that? Amsgearing (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not so clearly, I would say. I asked "if you advertised yours better, tell me how, so I'll learn something" but you did not reply. I still don't know what you're saying I did wrong. As for my block record, it is not relevant; what would you want me to say about things so far in the past? If you study what was behind each of those blocks, you still won't understand Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

News

Just noticed: Ron was named "Outstanding Ex" of Austin High School for 2018. See [1]. They even talk about the fact that he was a cheerleader. So when the page gets unprotected, we should expand the early-life section based on this source, and then the cheerleader picture will be relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

#1 The Austin High School Alumni Association is not what I'd call a professional, published source. If a reliable news organization had published on article on this event, then sure, report on the the dubious award being given. Either way, it's still a stretch to suggest that that makes the cheerleading picture worthy of inclusion in a biographical encyclopedia article.

How is "Outstanding Ex" a "dubious" award? And since when does a reliable source need to be "professional"? What is this concept of "worthy" that you're hung up on here? This is a second source, available to you online, confirming that he was a cheerleader. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

#2 We should all be aware that Dicklyon took the cheerleading picture himself, which may explain his bias as far as why he wants so badly to have the picture included. Amsgearing (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It's possible I took the photo myself; I don't specifically remember. It was me or one of three other yearbook photographers. As far as I know, I am the unique Wikipedia editor who is aware of being in possession of photos of the subject of this article, which is why I'm trying to get a photo added. I think both of the ones I added are OK. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Ku Klux Klan members

Myself and EEng (talk) both stated that adding Stallworth to the (Category:Ku Klux Klan members) was inappropriate. Both of us have reverted that addition. Rather than attempt to discuss it, Dicklyon has re-added that category multiple times. I agreed with EEng that adding this category is akin to classifying an undercover police officer in a prositution sting as a sex worker. It's not what the category is meant for.

This section is an attempt to follow WP:CYCLE and discuss this change, in the hope that Dicklyon will not edit war, and participate in the discussion. Amsgearing (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I respected that decision and added the parent category Category:Ku Klux Klan instead; read my edit summary and stop reflexive reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. EEng 16:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

An alternative might be to make a sub-cat like "Ku Klux Klan infiltrators" or "infiltrations"; there are several others. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There are those who think EEng infiltrated Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah? I dare you to say that at Talk:Homonym#Ad hominem, you... sexually aroused settlement in the administrative district of Gmina Barlinek, within Myślibórz County, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, in north-western Poland. EEng 23:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Double dog dare me with a cherry on top. Or something like that. Mocking me with obviously made-up Eastern European sounding swear words? Ha! I toss Mr. Bojangles' shoes into the pot, or visa versa. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ron Stallworth 1970 yearbook photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

High school yearbook image in Early life section?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the 1970 high-school yearbook headshot of Ron Stallworth be used in the "Early life" section of the article? 02:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The image in question, at the smallish 130px thumb size most recently used on the article

The current best "improved" version, not so contrasty

Note: to get more points of view, to get beyond the originators and the users canvassed by them, announcements of this RFC have been added at various possibly interested communities: WT:MOS, WT:WikiProject Biography#RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook on a bio article, WT:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement#RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook, WT:WikiProject Photography#RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Replies:

The use of the headshot from the subject's high school yearbook, which has been removed from the infobox by all involved, seems fine in the Early life section which summarizes the subjects high school years. But it has been objected to and removed from there as well, eliciting fears of The Forever Edit War. Can it be returned to the Early life section, or should it be banished forever from Wikipedia? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

pinging previous participants Meatsgains^(talk), Dicklyon (talk), Isaidnoway (talk), scope_creep (talk), ArchieOof (talk), Atlantic306 (talk), Aboudaqn (talk), in an effort to stimulate discussion so that no one declares the discussion over after just 2 people weigh in. Amsgearing (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't add It's low-quality, it's not representative of anything that Stallworth is notable for, and as such, it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I also don't know of any bio article that doesn't have a lead image but includes a high school yearbook photo further down in the article, so this would be way outside the norm, for no good reason that I can see. Amsgearing (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Add to the page, not low-enough quality to disqualify it. And per the guideline cited often above, WP:IMAGERELEVANCE, which states "When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals", such an image is fine. Hopefully more images will surface. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment WP:IMAGERELEVANCE doesn't say "add poor or inappropriate images on pages with no visuals", which is what you seem to be arguing. Many bio pages are fine without any images, and there's no reason to add poor ones just for the sake of having an image on the page. Amsgearing (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The image isn't poor, and certainly is not inappropriate. It's a high school yearbook image of the subject, which is as good as any other early life image. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

That's just, like, your opinion, man. Amsgearing (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Too much time spent on too little value... However, since we have not resolved, can we agree that a young photo is not particularly important in the absence of a photo from time/period of public prominence? In which case, no to younger image if unaccompanied by more recent. For that matter, is anyone in this group in touch with the subject himself, as perhaps he has a photo he would like used?... Meanwhile, shall we move onto more productive input? --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

He can be contacted on LinkedIn. But if he has a photo of himself, who took it? Who owns the right? These problems get harder, not easier, for images that were not published. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter, Barkeep49, and Cullen328: – It seems that Amsgearing failed to ping most of those who had said the headshot was OK. Please confirm or update your opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: – Oops, looks like another one we forgot to ping. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to affirm that my thinking matches Randy's. It shouldn't be a first choice but also isn't against policy and adds value to the reader with its inclusion. Having that picture is better than the current state of having no picture at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes add the photo unless or until we come up with something better. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support use of the high school headshot until a better, properly licensed portrait is available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• No - and just so we're clear, I'm not in favor of using that photo anywhere in this article or section - or any other article or section of WP. It's of terrible quality. I also find it ironic that the source being used for that single sentence, ridiculously described as a summary of his high school years (voted most popular??), even uses a recent photo of him, and doesn't use his crappy yearbook picture. Has anyone tried to contact that alumni association and asked for permission for use of a recent photo? It appears Stallworth is an active board member, according to their website. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's an alternate scan at the other extreme – low contrast and under-sharpened. We can make something in between if you think that helps.

• No I don't particularly like this image. It very low quality image, similar an old mid century out of focus bromide print. From an aesthetic view, it would reduce the quality of the article, particularly since the subject is handsome. These high contrast images should be of zero interest to any wikipedia seeking to improve an article. They are plain ugly and useless. Please don't use it. scope_creep (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: – Can you help adjust one of these to your satisfaction as an alternative to just saying no? Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since you've already contacted Stallworth once (so you say), why not contact him again, and ask for either a current photo or one of him in uniform? He gave those photos for use in various news articles, so why wouldn't he give one to you? Amsgearing (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: – Let me know what you think; does this go in a direction that helps with the problem you reported? Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• No at least until a few attempts at WP:CONSENT have failed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of WP:CONSENT being an issue for this public-domain photo. What are you referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You may claim that it's a public domain photo, but apparently, the school owns the copyright to the yearbook, so at the very least, unless you're a copyright lawyer, I'd say that point is under dispute. Amsgearing (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There may not be a copyright issue. This was a 1970 high school yearbook, unless I'm mistaken many of those were printed without copyright. It would probably say in the yearbook if it were copyrighted. And if the yearbook is copyrighted, wouldn't Dicklyon still have copy rights to a photograph he took? A question for category: Wikipedian copyright lawyers. And I'm surprised at the bias against black and white photographs I'm reading in the comments. It doesn't seem at all a poor quality photograph to me, I'm just not seeing it. It looks to me like a regular black and white high school photograph. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No, Dicklyon would not have the rights to the photo even if he had taken it, which he didn't (he took the cheerleading photo, the other one he tried to force into the page against consensus). The school retains the rights to those photos, as they do to the entire contents of the yearbook. Amsgearing (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no copyright law that I've heard of by which the school would retain rights to a book published in 1970 unless they had included a copyright notice and deposited a copy with the Library of Congress. That changed about 1978. And certainly I'm not suggesting that I have any rights in these images; they are public domain according to US copyright law. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And there's no way the school owns a student's yearbook photo under US copyright law. Whether it is literally or effectively public domain is matter of caselaw interpretation, but probably irrelevant because of the fair use doctrine. Details below at #The school does not own the photo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: – What did you mean by a CONSENT problem? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I meant there should be an attempt to ask the subject or his representatives for supply and permission of a more appropriate image, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I sent him this message on LinkedIn: Ron, I hate to bother you about Wikipedia more, but I've got some more odd pushback. One editor suggests at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Stallworth&diff=865822529&oldid=865818894 that we should "attempt to ask the subject or his representatives for supply and permission of a more appropriate image". Let us know if you have an image you could offer (it would need to be one where the photographer is known and could give permission, or one that's in the public domain due to being published in the 70s without a copyright notice). Dick

• No I already said this before, and I still think, it's a photo from too early in his life. Other editors mentioned quality, and I kinda agree with that too - it shouldn't be this hard to find a better picture. ArchieOof (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, you answered before, in response to "Should a photo of Ron Stallworth from his high school yearbook be used as the lead image for the article?" that it was "too early". So that's why we're now talking about using it in the "early life" section. Did you want to consider the question and say if there's a reason to say "No" again? And if you have ideas how to find an alternative photo, please do speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes until a better photo can be found. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The argument that the image is not pertinent or not encyclopedic because the image quality is too poor is unconvincing. The argument that it's from "too early in his life" to be appropriate in the "Early life" section is untenable. There is no requirement that a photo in a biography be representative of something for which the subject is notable. Published in 1970 without a copyright notice, it's {{PD-US-no notice}}. So I'm in agreement with Cullen328, use it until a better photo becomes available. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This photo is better than no photo. No opinion on copyright issues. EEng 00:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, per EEng. I must say, the unmodified photo at the top of this thread looks better than the "brighter" one ... facial features clearer, though the original is a bit light-reflective in patches. Low-contrast and under-sharpened: awful. Maybe "Here's another with slightly more contrast and mild sharpening." is better. But it could be just my screen settings. Tony (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, Tony. I'll be happy to have input on what makes a better adjustment after we get past these roadblocks. The first one was definitely over-sharpened by the Ricoh scanner, and then made too contrasty by me, but I agree my current best alternative goes to a bit too light and low contrast. I'm looking it on a Macbook Air; you? Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, per EEng and WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. Great if better photo were available, but in its absence this one is more informative for our readers than having no image. (Summoned by bot) HouseOfChange (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to image in early life section until better photo can be found. I personally don't have a problem with the original photo's quality (or perceived lack thereof). CThomas³ (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak yes, in some form. It is better to have an image than none, as long as it's not awful. Some tweaking of it can probably make it look better. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's of low relevance, being before the subject was notable, but it's not quite of zero relevance (as would be, say, a picture of him at age 5). Definitely replace it some day when we can. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Explicitly biased canvassing

As if pinging only people on his side was not enough, Amsgearing has left them all these super biased invitations to come back here and support this position:

1. Aboudaqn
2. Atlantic306
3. ArchieOof
4. Scope_creep
5. Isaidnoway
6. Meatsgains

So where can we go from here? Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you mean canvassing by YOU, on Randykryn's talk page?

There's not a hint of bias in any of those, and the invitation to comment was based on previous participation in discussion on this very topic. I'd also remind you that you WP:CANVASed Randykryn, an editor you had been friendly with for a while, posting congratulations on his talk page and whatnot, with this edit here, and you were looking for him to weigh in on your side in the debate about making the yearbook photo the lead image. Coincidentally, you were the only two that voted to make it the lead picture, and everyone else told you why that would be inappropriate. So maybe you have a guilty conscience and you're projecting your guilt onto me, except that I don't know a single one of those editors. So I think an apology from you where we go from here, as what you've just written is definitely a personal attack. Amsgearing (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I leave it to others to judge whether your canvassing messages are as explicitly biased as I said. My message to Randy was neutral, and I had no foreknowledge of what position he would take. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I did not think the message on my talk page was explicitly biased canvassing. I still think this whole argument has turned into a personal beef between amsgearing and dicklyon and if my original suggestion had been carried out to keep them both out of this discussion, this probably woulda been resolved already. ArchieOof (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't think "another attempt by an editor to force his scan of a yearbook picture onto the page" was biaed? Or that being addressed only to people who previously took his side was biased? OK. And yes, I agree it would have been better if we had stayed out of it, but after Amsgearing jumped in to the new RFC, I couldn't just sit back and watch him ping just his supporters. Or maybe I could have... Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternate yearbook photo

Here's an alternate scan at the other extreme – low contrast and under-sharpened. We can make something in between if you think that helps.

Dicklyon added this photo into the middle of a discussion about a different photo. As I felt this would only confuse the issue, I moved it.

And for the record, I don't think it helps. Amsgearing (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I have put it back in the appropriate context. When one is having a discussion about what's wrong with a photo, attempts to address the problem should be welcomed, not censored. Please stop editing my comments on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, it's the same photo. Just a different copy, differently adjusted. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's another with slightly more contrast and mild sharpening.

Maybe Tony would prefer this adjustment?

I've added another, which I think is preferable. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I have a comment. Listen to the editors that say the picture is not appropriate and not relevant, and changing the luminance value 10% isn't going to change that fact. Amsgearing (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

What resolution is it being scanned at? When you look at the image, you can see hatching, which indicates it has been scanned at too low a resolution. It is not that attractive. I would recommend that you take it to a shop, get it professionally scanned at a super high resolution of 4800dpi, it will come out absolutely gigantic. Upload it, and Ronz Bot will shrink it to size, and it will be perfect. scope_creep (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have done that already, or have all the kit already, then the base image is unsuitable, and an alternative image should be sought. There is way to get hold of a public domain image, which I found out how to do it recently, if it is available :) scope_creep (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The hatching is the halftoning from the version printed in the book, scanned about 600 dpi and blurred a bit to make better grayscale; scanning at higher resolution isn't going to make it go away, but if you have better software for de-halftoning, let me know. A small yearbook headshot is not going to make a great high-res big image, but as you can see is perfectly adequate at a small size. If you have alternate sources for public-domain images of him, please do help along those lines. Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Scope, though I'm no expert on de-halftoning, I am not naive about image processing and photography (having received, for example, the Progress Medal from the Royal Photographic Society). If you give me coherent input about quality (like when you noted the contrast was too high) I can do something with that. But I can't get back to the orignal bromide print. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon what software are you using? I understand that, its problematic. It might be worth trying to get a PD image. B would you be able to suggest a way or where more importantly, where we could get a public domain image? I know you mentioned on one of your articles about requesting one from somewhere. scope_creep (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm using Photoshop; just simple ops like blur and levels and unsharp mask; nothing sophisticated. I'm still hoping to hear from from Ron re my latest message on LinkedIn. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I just rescanned the cheerleader photo at 600 ppi (the previous one was 300, and I don't recall if that's how I scanned it or if I reduced it); and I did a de-halftone blur using a 2 pixel box blur instead of the other options, and that seems to have done a nicer job of reducing the hatching (I didn't blur the part where the caption is). I re-uploaded that one to the same place (you can compare in the history if you want to see in detail). I could try similarly on the headshot scan perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The school does not own the photo

A "the school owns the copyright" result would only happen under specific contract-law circumstances, in which the school paid a photographer to take the photos, and they were explicitly created as works-for-hire under the contract terms. But that doesn't happen with student portraits, which are paid for by the students and their families, taken by any random local photographer, and under conditions that pretty much universally result in the copyright belonging jointly to the student/family and the photographer. The student is entirely unencumbered in their own personal use and distribution of these photos (and are supplied with several sheets of them in various sizes to use for any purpose they want), while the photographer is also free to use a copy of one they really like as part of their portfolio and as a sample in their own ads. I honestly don't know whether there's a special provision in US copyright law about such photos that would make them public domain. But there's a US caselaw principle, well established for many decades, that photos intended and provided for publicity purposes, even by commercial entities like movie studios, are effectively public domain. Even there weren't, most uses of them we could contemplate here would be covered by the fair use doctrine, anyway. That would probably cover yearbooks. I do have a lot of experience working with int-prop lawyers, but am not one myself, and and int-prop is also a moving target both in statutory and case law. The real problem is that WP's legal department is massively paranoid, and actually restrains us from making all the fair use we're legally able to make. (In a sense I don't blame them, because our legal system permits anyone to file a lawsuit against anyone else for any reason, even a stupid and invalid one, and dealing with bogus, nuisance lawsuits incurs costs usually borne by the individual parties; we don't have a "loser pays" system, except in a few legal areas where statutes explicitly create one.) — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And unfortunately, the pragmatic issues go deeper than that--quite beyond the constraints the WMF may impose, the community itself (both as regards en.Wikipedia and especially at Commons, where the image is hosted) has embraced a rather extreme form of the precautionary principle when it comes to fair use images and even remotely borderline calls on media ownership. See, for example, the archives at Talk:Kim Jong-un, where consensus discussion kept out any image for almost seven years after the subject took office as the head of state for his nation--until quite recently, in fact. Although a number us (that is to say, those of us who stuck with that long debate) were strongly of the opinion that a fair use exception should be made, consensus kept any image suggested on that basis out, and also forbid the introduction of several images which arguably may have been public domain, but for which there was some doubt as to their providence. That was for an article on a head of state, regional strongman, and figure of significant import in some major global affairs, where the absence of an image was truly glaring was considered by some to be a bit of an embarrassment to the project as a whole. I doubt very much that an image on this article would receive a more generous application of WP:NFCP, WP:PD, and WP:IUP standards, which are stacked pretty deep in favour of the presumption that most non-free and questionable ownership images, respectively, should be avoided. Indeed, even if (as seems likely) consensus here ultimately finds the image suitable to that section, there is something of a significant chance that the volunteers at commons will ultimately delete this image. Of course, that's for the community there to decide, and arguably we should be focused here on solving the RfC issue as an independent matter; I just want to prepare the propoents of this image for the very substantial possibility that they may prevail in gaining consensus here, only to see the image deleted. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's really ridiculous! (The course of events you describe, I mean – not what you're writing.) This can't continue forever. At least we have the ability to host an image locally on en.wp, following en.wp consensus, should the int-prop paranoia at Commons actually exceed en.WP's own paranoia again. WP regularly uses fair-use materials (mostly for pop-culture articles).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's always an option; in fact, it would have to be done in that fashion, since Commons does not permit any non-free images, last that I checked--nor indeed any other image that does not employ one of a specific set of explicit free-use licenses. That said, even at en.Wikipedia, it's pretty hard to get an non-free exception supported (you correctly identify pop culture images as an area where the show up, but that's usually just from lack of their being noticed--they are often on under-patrolled articles, but eventually get noticed and removed under one rationale or another) and even PD images need to clear a number of procedural hurtles to demonstrate that status.

Honestly, there's a bit of paradoxical / worst of both worlds quality to how this works: lots of rather useless and probably not truly fair use images get uploaded even where they do not add much in terms of illustrative value, and these often stay for a while--but then, simultaneously, desperately needed images for important topics are locked out. For example, about five years back, a groups of SPAs tried to completely recreate a number of "Dungeons and Dragons" rule books / monster indexes; they created many hundreds of articles and categories and filled them with copyvio text and copyrighted images. In addition to the non-free content, these were blatant violations of WP:WWIN and WP:Notability, of course, but they stayed up for years; in fact, as regards the articles themselves, take a look at Lists_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_monsters to see how bad the problem remains to this day. The majority of the images (but by no means all) have been deleted, but it took an embarrassing number of years to happen and, to this day, the infoboxes and prose sections of most of those articles continue to prominently display external links to the copyrighted images, which is also blatantly against policy and a clear infringement upon the commercial rights associated with those images, in a manner that couldn't be more unacceptable, as an effort at providing a free replacement for said copyrighted media.

I gave up years ago on trying to organize an effort to delete those articles as utterly non-notable, brightline violations of numerous provisions of WP:NOT that are chalk-full of the most blatant copyright violations, images included. Meanwhile, if you want to include a fair-use image of a natural disaster or other major global event or issue, or of a major world leader to whom anglosphere / creative commons photographers have little or no access, you better be prepared for a grueling debate that could realistically last the better part of a decade. Talk about completely backwards priorities. Oh well, at least the discussion at Talk:Kim Jon-un always stayed markedly civil; I was always impressed by that and it made having to accept a consensus many of us strongly disagreed with a tad more tolerable. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to use the photo for now

Yes, OK to use the headshot in the "Early life" section

1. Randy Kryn
2. Dicklyon
3. Barkeep49
4. Cullen328
5. PopularOutcast
6. Worldbruce
7. EEng
8. Tony1
9. HouseOfChange
10. CThomas3
11. Galobtter (in an earlier discussion than the current RFC)
12. SMcCandlish
13. DGG (below)
14. Davey2010 (below)

No do not use the yearbook headshot at all

1. Amsgearing (a succession of different reasons to not use it)
2. Isaidnoway ("terrible quality" and "not representative of him as an adult")
3. Scope creep ("plain ugly and useless")
4. Atlantic306 (no clear objection reason given)
5. ArchieOof ("too early in his life"; no clear objection to use in Early life section)
6. Meatsgain ("too early in his life"; in an earlier discussion about the lead)
7. Aboudaqn (does not add enough value in the first place)
8. North8000 (only photo being him as a child is not appropriate)

Is it clear enough by now that there's no good reason to not use the yearbook headshot unless/until we find something better, and with no prejudice against continuing to improve the quality of the scan and processing? Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Should probably let an administrator decide when the RfC ends and the result of the process. I've kind of played around and kidded Amsgearing maybe a bit much, and my apologies. This may seem like a trivial thing to spend so much virtual ink on, but it's also an issue where everyone seems certain of their point of view, which equates to good faith all around. In the meantime, until an admin steps in to rule on the issue, it's an interesting study in how different people view old-timey photographs. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You should request a close then, which may take a week or two. Otherwise it won't end until it expires after 30 days. See WP:ANRFC. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I never read that page. So I guess we could agree that a decision has been reached, unless someone comes up with a reasonable explanation of why it hasn't. Seems to indicate that the use of the image in the early life section of the page is fine, on average. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, most editors clearly agree that "too early" is not a reason to not use it in the "Early life" section, and that the limited quality is not a reason to leave the article with no photos. Of course, will continue to look for later and better photos, PD or licensed. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If nobody brings up an objection real soon, I'd say we're done. And if they do, they better have something more substantial than the opinions refuted already, right? Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. But the whole original discussion about a lede image could have been avoided if we went with something like this. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And now Amsgearing has gone on break to spend his time on things more valuable. So I'll put the image back now that there's consensus and little chance of further warring about it. But go ahead and make that drawing – maybe we'll prefer it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, Dicklyon--having been bot-summoned here for a second time and focusing on the summary of !votes, I was tempted to NAC this, with a notice that I'd take no exception to said close being reverted. The reason I did not previously lodge an !vote of my own was that I found myself very torn between the two obvious arguments ("not consistent with his notability" and "illustrative of the section and anyway better than nothing"), and thus when I returned here today I reckoned that I would bring very little bias towards reading the consensus. To that end, if I were going to close the discussion today, it would be in favour of the position the two of you have endorsed--since I believe that position has carried the consensus--with some additional observations.

However, I then noted that this RfC has not been up even two weeks yet, and the number of !votes cast so far is not so staggering that fuller community input could not change the advised course of action. Lacking any specific argument for forgoing the standard thirty day period until the RfC tag has expired, I do not think a close at this time is appropriate, and I suspect any admin responding to a request through the normal process at AN is likely to say the same. Though I am personally convinced your efforts are goodfaith, you should be aware that others involved here might reasonably view your efforts to close the discussion just as your position has seen a sharp uptake, without waiting the usual default period, as gamesmanship--especially coming so soon after the issue of this photo first arose, if I am reading the edit and talk histories correctly.

Additionally, I honestly think it was a little premature to add the disputed content back in prior to such a close, per WP:BRD, which holds that disputed additions should stay out pending discussion. That said, if there have been no objections to your reintroducing the image since you did so, by all means, it's probably advisable to leave it in rather than reverting once more. However, if someone does object and remove it again pending a formal close here, you should definitely leave it out; otherwise, someone is likely to take this to WP:ANEW, given the strong feelings that been forwarded here (somewhat inexplicably, in my personal opinion). I'll check back after the thirty day period has tolled and, assuming I don't see any comment here asking me to defer in preference of a formal AN close, I'll still be happy to review and summarize consensus then, to help bring this to resolution. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and a fair and good analysis. One reason why a close seemed reasonable was the length of time this question had been in existence even before this RfC, which itself was a late-in-the-game response to a slow unending edit war. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and to be fair, I honestly don't expect much chance that the current proposal will not carry, full month or no; any concerns about appropriateness are likely be to assuaged by the fact that the current suggestion is to place the image next to the early life section, as opposed to the lead. That seems to have made for a big difference in the level of support in this RfC, compared against the last one (and indeed for rational and predictable enough reasons). But even so, it never hurts to be completely pro forma about these sorts of things: if nothing else it helps assure against the possibility that someone will try to re-open the discussion immediately after close, on a procedural argument. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No on photo. Let's close this issue. The photo itself adds little value to the entry. People are making assertions without proof about its legal use. This is a time-suck with little value for anyone.Aboudaqn (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Additional input was asked for . I think we should use the picture, in the original form' Thee seems to be no copyright problems, even under our current absurdly restrictive interpretation of fair use. --I accept the agreement of the photographer that. it is PD. As for appropriateness, it's appropriate for us to use what we have until something from a more encyclopedically significant phase of his life is available. As for form, it's a student yearbook picture, so it should look like a student yearbook picture. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes as per above - Better than no photo at all, It can be replaced when a freely licenced one becomes available. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC). –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Leave it out Invited by the bot. Having the only photo in the article being him as a child is not appropriate. Also I found the opening of the RFC to be biased. Besides the "seems fine" wording, it listed the alternative to using it as being the straw man extreme of "forever banished from Wikipedia".North8000 (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• North8000, it is biased because it was just a comment of mine which was turned into an RfC by someone, but I did agree to hold the RfC and should have reread and edited the comment. While I didn't start the RfC, I ended up being the public face of the RfC discussion (I will link my high school photo to "public face" given time). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  The neutral RFC question was placed above Randy's comment; this is what was advertised: "Should the 1970 high-school yearbook headshot of Ron Stallworth be used in the "Early life" section of the article?" Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Makes sense. And to address North8000's comment, the photo in question is a fair representation of the subject not too far removed from notable events in his life. Better to include a representative image (and this high school photo does seem fine for that purpose) than none at all. In any case, Wikipedia consensus (rather than a "consensus" where all parties in the discussion are fine with the overall decision, and that could have been reached when the photo was moved from the lede to "Early life" section) was reached on this sometime around Halloween and this RfC should be closed and filed. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It will expire in a week if not closed sooner. I was amused that the previous RFC just got an offiical close above, though it was clearly not needed or useful. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Randy Kryn for that explanation on the wording. It does appear to be a part of the header.....maybe you might like to clarify it there just so it doesn't look like you worded a biased RFC. Regarding my place here, I'd was just invited by the bot and did my best to comment. Whatever the outcome is is fine with me. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added 'Replies' to the top. Those AI bots do have a tendency to canvass. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The RFC tag is finally removed as the 30 days are up. I see no need for a formal close. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.