Talk:Christer Lindarw

Portrait photograph

I am asking neutral editors to comment on which photo, aside from size, technical details or date, can be considered the best portrait for this BLP;

1. the one recently removed but visible here or
2. the one that replaced it as per this edit?

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The old photo was cropped from File:Christer Lindarw et al.jpg - low resolution, red eye-effect, grainy photo taken 1994. The new one had been taken just a few weeks ago. Better resolution, better lighting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral comments needed: Kuiper is not neutral on this issue as he has pushed for the use of one of the photos on svWP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Why do you ask for size, date etc. to be disregarded? They seem valid considerations in picking the better picture, and I find myself agreeing with Pieter. The new one is not perfect by any means, but it's the better of the two we have available. Maybe consider cropping it to centre the subject in the frame.—AJCham 22:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 3O editor for providing your opinion! I'm not used to having one of the two standpoints questioned by a 3O editor like this, but the answer to your question, as I see this, can be readily accessed in our article about portrait photography, as per the wording of the 3O request as posted. To me the only important thing is whether or not the subject person's face is more clearly shown, even if a photo is older or of a lesser technical quality. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Would any more neutral editors like to comment on which is the better portrait? I haven't asked which is the newest photo or the largest or the most technically advanced, so no futher comment is needed on those aspects which are irrlevant to this question. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel #2, the current portrait, is better to include on this BLP. The old photograph, while showing a more direct view of the subject's face, is showing a distorted version of Christer Lindarw because of the technical issues which you insist on disregarding. timrem (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also: the page you should be referencing in a discussion about which image to include is the Wikipedia Manual of Style, not portrait photography. --timrem (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I can sincerely thank you for this helpful input, Timrem, though I don't know why you added a misrepresentation of what I "insist on disregarding". Actually, I'm not insisting on or disregarding anything, just reacting naturally to what I thought were obvious requirements for a best portrait and a rather obvious relationship of technical issues to that aspect.

What is or is not a good portrait needed to be established centuries ago, which was done, otherwise we would all still be arguing about which painter, using which technique, is/was the most accurate portraitist.

Your link to the manual is enligthening. As with so many things, we all need to learn the special Wiki Way of doing things. Now I know, here too. Thanks again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, happy to help. Sorry if I misrepresented your comments, you can probably blame that on the fact that I was still awake at... 4am? (If I'm doing the maths right) Happy editing, and feel from to drop me a note if you need anything (prompt reply not guarenteed :P) --timrem (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT?

He has now been categorized as LGBT though there is not a word about his sexuality in the article and he is not known to cross-dress except when in character for stage performances. I am reversing the label and asking for a well sourced addition to the article's text about his sexual prefererance, if that is available and considered appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he's been filed in Category:LGBT people from Sweden since 2007, and you've apparently been an active editor of this article since at least 2012. So if you're questioning whether he's LGBT at all, then why did you have no issue with "LGBT people from Sweden" at all for five years, taking umbrage with it only after I moved him to an occupational subcategory yesterday — and why did you revert him back into "LGBT people from Sweden" instead of removing LGBT-related categories entirely, if your question is whether he's LGBT at all? Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I (1) hadn't noticed that he had been so labelled earlier and (2) did not "take umbrage" and (3) appreciate your informing me and (4) stand by what I wrote above. In a BLP, these labels must be well sourced. I'm sure you agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I often do the exact same thing when I come across an article that's categorized as LGBT but doesn't actually contain the content or sourcing to support it — however, AWB isn't a tool for evaluating content, but only for performing automated batch edits. So when I was processing the batch yesterday of people who were in "LGBT people" but needed to be moved to "LGBT entertainers" instead, I wasn't actually in a position to evaluate whether the "LGBT people" category was supported or not, but just that it was there. I'm not taking issue with your concern in principle, just with the way it appeared directed at me instead of the general overall question. That's all I got. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It was (5) not directed at you. Thanx again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)