Jump to content

Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

RfC on whether or not to include File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

Resolved. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

The purpose of this RfC is to determine if the current community consensus is in favor of including this image in the article. A recent deletion discussion ended in no consensus, but it has not yet been determined if there is consensus to keep the image in this article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion

  • 1. Keep The core principle that should guide our decision here is the WMF's March, 2007 board resolution which explicitly allows non-free images "to illustrate historically significant events". So how do we evaluate whether an event is "historically significant" or not? The yardsticks vary. If one is editing a 400 page textbook summarizing the entirety of world history, the inclusion criteria must by necessity be narrow. When editing an encyclopedia with over 4.4 million articles, our standards can and must be far broader. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in making such evaluations. I may reasonably conclude that a specific image meets the threshold, and another editor acting in good faith with a slightly narrower interpretation than mine, may come to the opposite conclusion. Both of us are commenting in good faith, and neither assessment should be dismissed out of hand. One of the standards that I use in this case is that this event of 45 years ago is discussed in books and periodicals published many years and even decades later.
WP:NONFREE states that "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously". So, is this image "iconic" and is the arrest and trial a "historical event"? The biography currently devotes nine sentences to the arrest and trial. Some images are clearly more iconic than others, but the standard is not "highly iconic images" or "the most famous iconic images". An encyclopedia with over 4.4 million articles by definition has a broader and more inclusive definition than the famous photos of the Iwo Jima flag raising and the napalm burns on the naked little Vietnamese girl, and the corpses of students at Kent State. The iconic status of an image is always subjective. I sincerely consider this image to be "iconic" but realize that other editors disagree.
The book Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy by Harry Shapiro devotes at least eight pages to the arrest and trial, reporting that after the arrest, Hendrix was "looking as if there was a plane crash" and "Jimi had a Sword of Damocles hanging over him for the rest of the year." The website Complex Style has discussed the mugshot, commenting "By 1969 Jimi Hendrix's wardrobe was at its peak levels of insanity and awesomeness. Imagine the knowing smirks airport security must have given each other when he strolled up at the Toronto airport. After finding a small bag of H in his luggage, Jimi's trippy gear was on full display in the ensuing mugshot.". Hendix's attire was the subject of intense interest in the months that followed, as reported by The Torontoist, which says "The press obsessed over Hendrix’s attire, reporting it in copious detail each time he appeared in court." This image of what he wore is the best record we have of the press obsession with his attire, specifically on the day of his arrest. The defense strategy, as reported in the Toronto newspapers, was that the drugs were planted, and also that someone intent on smuggling heroin across an international border would not have dressed and behaved in such a flamboyant way at the border crossing, and likely would have had needle tracks on his arms, and would have had drug paraphernalia along with the drugs that were siezed. All those factors including the attire were cited in support of the theory that the drugs were planted, and elicited from prosecution witnesses in cross examination. That was a completely successful defense strategy, since Hendrix was acquitted. This mug shot helps illustrate that defense strategy, since in that photo, he has "frizzy hair", a shirt with wide lapels, a bare chest, a vest with an ornate pattern, and bold jewelry on a chain.
The Torontoist published this mugshot and reported that The Globe and Mail ran seven stories about the arrest and trial, and the Toronto Star ran eight. The Rolling Stone ran two stories. Autobiographies by the two surviving members of the Jimi Hendrix Experience discuss the arrest, and several biographies of Hendrix devote significant attention to the arrest and trial. At least two biographies of Hendrix use the mugshot, by Roby and Jucha who describes "Jimi's mug shot after his bust in Toronto on trumped up charges".
As for its iconic status, a Google Images search shows the the mugshot is now featured on hundreds of websites, and being used a source material for fine artists, digital artists and online purveyors of T-shirts and coffee mugs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I have discovered a book that not only discusses the mug shot but features it on the cover. The book is called Mug Shots: An Archive of the Famous, Infamous, and Most Wanted, and was published by Abrams Books in 2009. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
What proof do you have that they discuss the actual image. Also, what copyright info do they give for the photo? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not yet know how extensive the discussion about the Hendrix mugshot in this book actually is, GabeMc. What I do know is that the New York Times reviewed the book in 2009, mentioning Hendrix first among many famous subjects, saying "Brief but informative accounts accompany the images and 'are intended to report reality and give the facts without ever interpreting them,' Pellicer writes. 'This is first and foremost a book of stories, not a history book.' Indeed, these faces tell some amazing stories." I have no additional information about the copyright status beyond what's been discussed previously, but I intend to keep looking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a copy on the way. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 2. Keep per Cullen328. Photo judged important enough for book cover. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That gives it direct significance (however great or small that might be) in the context of the subject of the book (i.e. mug shots) not the subject of the article.—Aquegg (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 3. Keep per Cullen328. The mugshots add a lot to to the reader's understanding, in my view. With all due respect to Gabe, who has worked extensively on this article, I think this Rfc is unfortunate. Without going into detail, I believe Cullen makes the case for Wikipedia policy not being a bar to inclusion. Jusdafax 06:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 4. Keep. The two NFCC arguments presented to oppose inclusion are essentially FfD arguments. I see longstanding presence of the image in the article all the way through FA, and there is confirmation that the article would have made FA with it in place. This is enough proof of longstanding consensus for the image being here to me. I do not feel that this is a necessary RfC at all, or know why consensus would turn so sharply after 4 years and FA passage. This is more to me like FfD 3(a). Doc talk 12:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 5. Keep: Biographical, and Historical. Myself, I have learned about it, for the first time. Amazing finding too. Noteswork (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 6. Keep: I see no issue with keeping it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 7. Strong Keep: For all the reasons I gave at great length in the recently closed RfC which I include herein by reference. Let me also observe that the earlier discussion and this have now consumed over 33,000 words or nearly twice the length of the Hendrix article itself and which if printed out would fill over sixty single spaced typewritten pages. As I observed in the RfC discussion, I think this speaks far more to the fundamental fault in NFCC#8 itself. As I and others have pointed out many times before, no image or illustration is ever "necessary" to "understand" what it illustrates. The purpose of this mugshot (and every other image or illustration on WP) is to serve as a visual adjunct to enhance and illustrate ("the employment of a graphic, photograph, drawing, picture, painting, or other artwork or rendering intended for enhancement, explanation, elucidation, and/or adornment") the article's context. What a person looks like when arrested -- especially a well know public figure -- is notable and relevant to "understand" the details of the arrest, although like every other illustration on WP it is not really "necessary" as that is an unachievable and therefore false standard. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not just an empty phrase.
In addition the taking of mugshots are an integral and universally mandated part of the arrest and booking process as practiced in Canada (where this occurred) and the United States, and thus their existence do not need to be separately stated in the text to be understood as having been done. Identifying them as such in the caption is more than adequate. Depending on the crime, such photographs may not be "notable" for the arrest of the average private citizen, but in the case of public figures such as entertainers (especially very widely know ones like Hendrix), politicians, professional athletes, public servants, etc, they most assuredly are notable for virtually any offense. (See, for instance, the TIME and Newsweek covers of O.J. Simpson when he was arrested in 1994 for the murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman.) If the individual is notable, then so to are their mugshots. To consider them otherwise is ignoring the obvious.
The claim of copyrightability of booking photographs (or "mugshots") which are legally required public safety records is also extremely dubious even under the Crown Copyright Act. "When the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright," copyright law expert Henry H. Perritt, Jr. Esq. notes in his paper "SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION". "This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and assembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." Mugshots are defined as public records in Canada under §2 of The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.56).
I'm sure the few image deletionists here are well intentioned, but isn't more than 33,000 words enough to convince them that after three well discussed tries their position here has not and will not achieve consensus to support removing this image? So why not now just let this rest and leave this image alone now. Imagine if all the time and effort expended in this multi-part exercise had instead been applied to building new entries and expanding existing ones. Wouldn't that have been far more constructive to improving the project? Centpacrr (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 8. Strong keep - per the excellent analysis by Cullen. BMK (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 9. Keep per above, and the FfD. Also, a rerun of the FfD seems inappropriate, no matter the non-policy based absolutist claims of "obvious"; "clearly"; "clear"; "not essential" "reader cannot understand" etc. there are below. Not only does the image's use pass all the criteria in the NFCC in the supporters', source based, reasoned judgements, it does so swimmingly to the encyclopedic benefit of readers of the article and the section. In short, editorially it enhances the educational value of the article and, as already kept at the FfD, policy does not bar its use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


Oppose inclusion

  1. There are currently six non-free files in the article, and this one has by far the weakest rationale. Nobody has provided any evidence that at least one source critically discusses the actual image. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." Criteria #4 says: "Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor." There is no evidence that the copyright holder has published this image. Criteria #8 says: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There is no need to include a non-free file to illustrate what is obvious. Readers need not see this mugshot to understand what it means that Hendrix was arrested. Further, the image is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the article or elsewhere. For those two reasons it should not be included in this article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. We already have a free image of him File:Jimi Hendrix 1967.png There is nothing discussing the visual content of the image other than he was arrested. Which can be replaced with text. Werieth (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Nonfree image, and not essential to the article. Fails on policy grounds from the start. Collect (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Absent clear evidence that this image is free, we must assume that it is not, and as a non-free image it fails NFCC on multiple points. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. It is obvious that this image needs to be removed, as it is a non-free image which evidently fails NFCC#8 (no matter how many times people claim this image is "historical", the significance of an event has no bearing on the significance of an image of (or used to represent) that event). Those who believe that this image should stay in the article need to prove one of two things: They either need to demonstrate that the image is freely licensed, which is unlikely, or demonstrate that a reader cannot understand the topic "Jimi Hendrix" without knowing what this mugshot looked like (in the same way that, for instance, that we really do not know the full story of Jared Lee Loughner without seeing the famous mugshot), which those in support of keeping the image have failed to do, no matter how many paragraphs they write. Finally, as a procedural point, this image should be kept in the article only if there is a a clear consensus that it should be kept. The NFCC make clear that the burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep non-free images; a lack of consensus, then, must default to removing the image. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. Remove. I did ask the closer at FFD to expand his reason to close, and fairly he pointed out that the image is tied to the aspect of Jimi's supposed drug use and thus the reason to close no cosensus since this facet could possibly be expanded. That's a reasonable starting point, but there absolutely needs to be a stronger connection made between that and the photo before it can be kept, and from what has been added, I'm not seeing that happen. Without that discussion, this is yet another non-free photo of Jimi, and we don't need any more than what's already there. Thus it should be removed until its justification can be made clearly. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. As the picture isn't even discussed in the article, I can't see why we are even discussing this. Remove without hesitation. —Kusma (t·c) 21:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. I don't think it makes sense to rehash this discussion (see below), but if we are rehashing it, put me down as an oppose. Refer to my prior deletion discussion commentary -- this photo adds barely anything to the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  9. Has to go. Omission of the image would not in any way, shape, or form be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. ✄ (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  10. This offers very little in way of visual representation to the subject matter and conveys absolutely nothing to the reader in terms of understanding Hendrix as an artist. As the image is copyrighted, it fails NFCC and therefore should not be included. This image is just being used for the sake of being used and should not be used for that very reason. CassiantoTalk 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  11. Strong Not Keep What is the purpose of dragging this guy through the mud by posting a mug shot? Living or dead does not matter. That is bad form, disrespectful and uncalled for unless this is the National Enquirer. If we post the mug shots of other famous people many articles might suddenly be filled with a new mug shot section. No way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  12. Remove. The two NFCC arguments given to oppose inclusion cannot be called FfD arguments. I do not think that longstanding presence of the image in the article all the way through FA is grounds in itself, and there is actually confirmation that the article would not have made FA with it in place. This is enough proof that consensus for the image being here does not exist. I do feel that this is being overlooked by a lot of editors here. I know why consensus would turn so sharply after 4 years, and that is simply the march of time on WP. To call this FFD is simply a travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonarclawz (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  13. Remove. In my opinion, the rational for fair use is weak. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

You said you would do this, so I'm not surprised. Two failed FfDs to delete do have some weight. This is a big waste of time. Doc talk 04:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Doc9871, the way I see it, those two discussion ended in no consensus, which means there were nearly as many good reasons from editors to not include the image as there are to include. Nobody has yet determined if the community supports including the image in this bio, so lets be sure that no one is "forcing" this image on the community based on a lack of consensus to delete. If the image passes here, then this matter should be closed long-term. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Aside from a few inappropriate attempts to remove it, it's been here for over 4 years.[1] This is, of course, before you even started editing this article; but in the literally thousands of edits you have made to it, I don't see you once attempting to remove it until the FA review. Did it not have consensus to be there during all those edits, all along? How this image does not have "consensus" to be here is going to take some rethinking, apparently. I also think that NFCC #4 does not apply to this image whatsoever. It would be interesting to know why you think it does. Doc talk 08:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Doc9871, well every article I have ever edited contained all kinds of stuff that really shouldn't have been there, and sometimes the stuff was there for years. Most editors likely assumed that it was a free file; I never looked into it in any detail. I'm not against the image per se, but I do like doing things the right way, and Nikkimaria knows her stuff. Anyway, I see this as the last test. Just because the image was not deleted does not automatically mean there is a clear consensus to include the non-free image here. Indeed, its the only non-free file with a dubious FUR in the article. If the community of editors think it should be included then we'll keep it here. RE #4. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the actual copyright holder has ever published the image. For all we know, a version was leaked inappropriately and has been copied ever since. I don't see any reason to believe that the party who legally owns the image has ever published it in any form; since no Wikipedian has even identified the copyright holder as of yet. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The source of the image here is a subsidiary of Time Warner. I never would have pulled it off some random blog. They have good editorial oversight and #4 is satisfied. Doc talk 12:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that specifically states that Time Warner owns the copyrights to the image, because it does not matter if they published the picture if they do not own the copyright. #4 requires that the publication be by the copyright owner, not just anyone who steals the intellectual property. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't need to find a reliable source stating that Time Warner owns the copyright. They certainly may not own it: but they would have to have gotten permission from the copyright holder in order to publish it. The image was taken from a reliable source that certainly does their homework. To assume that they, or the publishers of the mugshot book, "stole" the image is borderline preposterous when you realize that they have really good lawyers working for them. #4 is clearly satisfied with this image. Ask around if you won't take my word for it. Doc talk 05:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Doc9871, well is it "borderline preposterous" that Chicago Review Press printed the image without proper permission, because you tagged the Roby ownership as needing a citation? If Roby doesn't own the image, and he told me that he doesn't, then Chicago Review Press did exactly what you say isn't done by professional publishers. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Chicago Review Press - the "small press" publisher? I said it was borderline preposterous that the source for this image, ultimately Time Warner, would ignore copyright. Apples and oranges. Doc talk 03:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, do you really think that a highly respected publisher of art books like Abrams Books would put the image on the cover of a book in 2009 without either obtaining permission of the copyright holder, or determining that the image is not subject to copyright? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a loaded question; some might if they attempted to determine ownership, but couldn't. Cullen328, do you really think that a highly respected website like Wikipedia should keep the image in an article in 2014 without either obtaining permission of the copyright holder, or determining that the image is not subject to copyright? Did Abrams Books include any copyright info regarding the picture, because its safe to assume that they don't own it, so if they are reproducing an image they don't own they should include CR info, right? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, I have explained in great detail several times why I think that WMF policy, Wikipedia's guidelines, and fair use justify our use of this image. Yes, I believe that limited use of non-free images is acceptable and in line with policy, and I believe that this is one of those cases. You are entitled to disagree. We will decide based on consensus, and I will respect consensus, as I always do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, and much of what you've stated has been misleading. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You claim that my remarks have been misleading. I disagree. No other editors have expressed that concern in this debate, or the previous one. Please double check your perceptions. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Binksternet, the same publisher that judged the Hendrix mugshot important enough for the cover included a mugshot of Elvis on the same cover, but Elvis was never arrested; its a security photo, not a mugshot. Cullen328, do the writers of the book acknowledge that the Presley "musgshot" is not a real arrest photo? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Since I get the feeling that Cullen will be going back to the Torontoist article again and again, here is a link to the actual piece: Historicist: Stone Free. FWIW, when Cullen says that the article states: "The press obsessed over Hendrix’s attire, reporting it in copious detail each time he appeared in court." He is not lying, but they are talking about subsequent court appearances, not his attire at the time of the arrest as Cullen would like everyone to think. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wrong. The defense argued that Hendrix's clothing choice at the airport was flamboyant and thus was not the kind of clothing which would be worn by someone trying to smuggle drugs into Canada. The clothing called attention to Hendrix. This airport clothing was the same that Hendrix wore when photographed. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Binksternet, but its you that has it wrong. According to Mitchell and Redding, the entire Hendrix entourage knew about the bust the day before, so how was his attire that day a factor in a pre-planned bust? The Mounties were waiting for him at the Airport, before they even saw what clothes he was wearing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, none of that has any bearing on the fact that Hendrix was wearing attention-getting clothing at the airport, the fact that his mugshot shows this clothing (without the headband), and that the defense case includes the argument that Hendrix's attention-getting clothing was not typical of a person who was trying to smuggle drugs. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No one argues that the attire caused him to be searched, except initial speculation in the Rolling Stone. Instead, as I've said over and over, the defense argued that Hendrix was "conspicuous", and that he was wearing "a headband and obviously mod clothing", as confirmed by a prosecution witness and reported in the Globe and Mail. That behavior and attire was inconsistent with a drug smuggler, they argued. You have thoroughly refuted an argument I am not making, GabeMc. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, please format your responses so that they do not disrupt the thread. Okay, I hear you, but you keep dodging the point that his attire is NOT the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article, and to add it would be undue weight in a summary article. My point is that we don't include non-free files that are not the subject of sourced critical commentary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing whatsoever disruptive about my participation in this discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But what the Torontoist reported was: "First, Wilson agreed with the defense lawyer that Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing." Which, implies that the point was raised by Hendrix's defense team, which is the same as Hendrix and a primary source. The Torontoist reported what the defense created. If Rolling Stone stated: "According to Hendrix, he is the greatest rock guitarist", that does not make the claim a secondary one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A primary source in this matter would be the trial transcript, GabeMc. When the Globe and Mail reported on the trial on December 9, 1969, and their reporter and editor selected the portions of the day's events that they considered most relevant and newsworthy, quoting witnesses and attorneys, then that is a reliable, independent, secondary source. The Torontoist reproduced an image of the news clipping. It is the Globe and Mail that is the source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Right, the primary source is the court transcript, which I've seen, and Hendrix's wardrobe is mentioned, but only in passing and its the defense pushing the point. What I meant is, the primary source for the information about his appearance being a factor was the Hendrix defense team. Anyway, how are we going to discuss an image that no secondary source describes? Why are you fixated on needing a mugshot to illustrate an arrest? Should we include a picture of the airport as well? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am no more "fixated" on keeping the image than you are fixated on deleting it, GabeMc. This is a debate, that's all. I think it adds to the article, but if the image is deleted by consensus, I will shed no tears and will move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not argue to include a better image? Why fight for this one? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I choose to support inclusion of this image now, because I believe that it belongs in the article. I may well also support inclusion of other images that you consider better later. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, in your keep rational you state: "The Torontoist published this mugshot and reported that The Globe and Mail ran seven stories about the arrest and trial, and the Toronto Star ran eight." That is misleading at best. The Torontoist does not in any way shape or form say that. They include a note at the bottom that says: "Other sources consulted: the Globe and Mail (May 2 & 5, June 20, July 21, and December 9, 10 & 11); and the Toronto Star (May 5 & 6, June 19 & 20, and December 8, 9, 10 & 11)." Which is entirely different then explicitly stating that those 15 articles were about the arrest and trial. Also, while they did include the mugshot, they also included the attribution: "Jimi Hendrix’s mug shot from the May 3, 1969, arrest in Toronto from Wikimedia Commons." Its not at commons to my knowledge, nor would it survive a FFD discussion there. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • GabeMc, I don't see what 's "entirely different" in what they said and how I summarized it. Are you claiming that they listed all of those dates, but that those newspapers did not actually report on the Hendrix case on those dates? I can't explain their attribution and haven't searched Commons, but what is indisputable is that they ran the mugshot.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In terms of sourcing, your statement is WP:OR. I agree that the other sources were likely about the trial, but they were most likely one-paragraph updates that, as far as we know, said nothing relevant to his attire on the day of the arrest. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not add that as a statement in article space, and did not claim that all of those articles discussed his attire, but rather that they seemed to discuss the arrest and trial. It is a fair summary of what the source says, I believe, in a talk page discussion. Anyone is free to read the source, linked at least twice already.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • From Cross, Charles R. (2005). Room Full of Mirrors: A Biography of Jimi Hendrix. Hyperion. ISBN 978-0-7868-8841-2, p. 253: "By far the most extraordinary aspect of Jimi Hendrix's drug bust in Toronto on May 3, 1969, was how little press it generated." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, we know that the Torontoist is citing only two contemporary papers, right? One small blurb from two different newspapers for each day of the trial isn't exactly extensive coverage, is it? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I own 40+ sources on Hendrix, and absolutely none of them discuss the actual image. There is only one Hendrix source that I am aware of that includes the picture, and that's in a book by Steven Roby, who claims to own the mugshot. If the Hendrix mugshot is really so vital to his story, then why do 99% of Hendrix sources not include the photo? The preponderance of sources ignore its importance, and Wikipedia should follow their lead. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I don't own that book because its a low-quality source; I was talking about the book that I own, not all books in existance. Still, that makes two books about Hendrix that include the shot and 45+ that do not. 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)GabeMc (talk|contribs)
  • Can anyone provide evidence that at least one source critically discusses the actual image or Hendrix's attire on May 3, 1969? Why would we include a non-free file that isn't discussed in any reliable secondary sources? How can we discuss the image in-line without a source? It seems to me that the keep rationales are not at all based in policy, and rather seek to decorate the article with this copyrighted image. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
On December 9, 1969, the Globe and Mail reported:

"He agreed with Mr. O'Driscoll that Hendrix was conspicuous, wearing a headband and obviously mod clothing. Mr. Wilson said he found no spoons, pipes, cigarette papers or hypodermic needles in Hendrix's luggage."

Over 42 years later, on May 12, 2012, The Torontoist, a media partner of the Globe and Mail, reported:

"In cross examination, however, O’Driscoll began casting doubt about the ownership of the narcotics. First, Wilson agreed with the defence lawyer that Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing. Then, Wilson admitted that the flight bag contained none of the paraphernalia usually associated with drug use—spoons, cigarette papers, or pipes. And Matheson confirmed that the police at the airport had found no needle marks on the musician’s arms." Wilson and Matheson were Canadian government employees and prosecution witnesses.

The May 31, 1969 coverage in the Rolling Stone was written by two very prestigious rock journalists in the early days of their careers, Ritchie Yorke and Ben Fong-Torres. Yorke was based in Toronto at the time, and Fong-Torres in San Francisco. Both were known to be close to the Hendrix camp, and Yorke published a lengthy interview with Hendrix the following year. I believe that their story can be seen at least partially as an expression of the views of Hendrix and his team in the immediate aftermath of the arrest. This is shown by phrases such as "According to sources at the scene" and "There is talk that the defense – logically – will claim Hendrix to be the victim of a plant", and access to witnesses to the arrest like limo driver Louis Goldblatt whose comments led to a summary of the developing defense strategy, describing drug gifts to the stars, "This is most often done as a token of love, but sometimes for spite. And if somebody was out to 'get' Hendrix by laying a surprise stash on him – in his suitcase, more precisely, then phoning ahead to tip off the Mounties – there was plenty of time that this might have been accomplished, from the time he left off the suitcase at Detroit to when it arrived back in his hands at Toronto.". This May comment clearly anticipates and predicts the December defense strategy, and also theorizing in many reliable sources over the years about where those drugs came from, including the possibility that someone may have planted them deliberately to weaken or damage Hendrix.
Now, we come to the speculative statement that has been so controversial in this discussion: "The populace of Toronto are a very conservative lot, and tend to look with suspicion upon anybody who looks and dresses a little different from themselves. Hendrix looks a lot different. Make an example of this freaky, frizzy-haired psychedelic spade (if you go by this reasoning) and maybe you can scare the freaks out of Yorkeville.". This is a comment that didn't really stand up six months later in its full implications, but it was a comment that presaged the broader point that his attire would be an issue at his trial. I readily admit that this comment does not report specifically on the details of his attire at the airport. But I believe that it originated from statements made to one or both of the reporters by people in the Hendrix camp that Hendrix had been flamboyant in behavior and dress at the airport, and that this would be an element of his defense. It was, and that defense strategy was successful. Hendrix was acquitted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328, your above wall of text is the exact same stuff you've been hammering on since the FFD discussion, but you still havn't provided even one reliable secondary source that describes the defense strategy of casting doubt on Hendrix's mens rea based on his attire. Which source would we cite if we were to insert a line about the defense strategy tied to his appearance? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, I am unsure of why you are stressing that the image is supposed to be discussed in secondary sources in order for it to be valid. It is not being presented as an "iconic" in the sense that it must itself be the source of commentary to show its iconic status. I don't see anything in the NFCC policy "10-point" criteria that directly addresses that an image must be discussed, in detail, in sources. The language of the WP:NFC#UUI#5 guideline, which is where I think you may be getting this from, does not trump anything. If you think it fails guideline WP:NFCI (#8 & #9), I would certainly argue that NFCI#10 is met. This is not a deletion discussion of this image anyway, so claiming that it fails the NFCC is not really productive. Doc talk 08:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Right! To have this image in the article, we must discuss it in the article text. This is certainly possible. It does not have to be discussed in depth in secondary sources, though there are, of course, a few sources that discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, which reliable secondary source discusses the image, because as of now I am not aware of any that do? Well, this is from the upload Wizard: "This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows." The Wizard will not let you upload a non-free image without claiming that the image itself is the subject of discussion in the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse. Several sources have been listed in discussion here. But how about a fresh one: Jimi Hendrix Gear: The Guitars, Amps & Effects That Revolutionized Rock 'n' Roll by Michael Heatley, ISBN 1610604210. Heatley says that "Hendrix's mugshot was not representative of his 1965 self."
Bink, please stop with the veiled attacks; can we just start over here or do you intend to act rude to me for years to come? Until now, nobody has show any text that discusses the image, NOBODY. That the books include the image is not at all the same thing as discussing the image. Roby includes it, but he does not acknowledge its existence. Great find with the Heatley source. That's the best anyone's done in three weeks, and I think that should be enough for me to bring the article up to code! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Bink, Heatley is referring to an earlier Hendrix mugshot, not the one from May 3, 1969. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, since you started all this, and I'm the only person defending your logic, it would be really nice if you took the time to share with us why you thought the image was inappropriate. Had you passed the image we would never have entered into this extended discussion, so please at least update us as to whether or not you stand by your FAC comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria believes that this image (and others credited similarly in that article) are deletable per the NFCC. She has said she will staunchly oppose FA nomination because of those images. She simply does not accept that the State Archives of Florida gave us permission to publish these images so long as we credit their archives. The facts are: they have more than once confirmed that we can use the images with proper attribution, that the WMF is based in Florida, and that Florida has decidedly "progressive" ideas of what can images can be considered PD. I do think she does know her stuff; but I also think she is unwilling to go beyond what she believes to accommodate those who disagree. So good luck getting her to respond here. If there is an "image policy guru" - she is certainly not the final authority. Doc talk 03:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    However, Wikimedia servers are now in Virginia, not Florida, and that's the where the law regarding copyright is. And save for some sound recordings in the 1970s, the copyright law of states in the US is unified at the national level. The only thing that will limit image use due to the state the servers are located in are what may be illegal, like photos of minors under certain conditions. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    Masem: hold up a second. If the copyright law of all US states is unified at the national level, does that mean that {{PD-FLGov}} and {{PD-CAGov}} are deemed totally invalid? Or, better yet, are they transferrable to all the other states? Doc talk 07:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    No. CA and FL law requires their internal state government-produced documentation to be considered public domain (the same that US federal government are also expected to be public domain). How copyright law otherwise is handled remains under US purview. These state laws are akin to us on WP requiring all contributors to release works they create (text or media) in a CC-BY or PD license - there's still laws that enforce how copyright applies to them from the US federal level. --MASEM (t) 07:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • USAM Title 9 Criminal Resource Manual §1844 Copyright Law—Preemption of State Law: "On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State." 17 U.S.C. § 301(a); Criminal Resource Manual 1859; USAM 9-71.001; USAM 9-71.010 Centpacrr (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Cullen, re your above comment: "I have discovered a book that not only discusses the mug shot but features it on the cover." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I see this as misleading because you do not know if the book discusses the actual image, do you? Repeating this over and over does not make it true, but its most likely confusing editors and winning support for your position. If you have not yet read the book, then why do you think its a good idea to introduce into the discussion a statement like: "I have discovered a book that ... discusses the mug shot"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ugh, not again. I think the FFD discussion was a de facto conclusion that this stays in the article for the time being. I voted to delete and don't think the image belongs in this article, but this is a huge waste of everyone's time to have the discussion again. Let's revisit in 2-5 years. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not exactly, Calliopejen1. According to the closing admin, a lack of consensus to delete does not mean that there is consensus to include the image in the article in first place, and to my knowledge, its never been tested on that grounds (I was certainly never asked for my opinion). If there is not a clear consensus to include the image here, it will be removed and eventually deleted as an orphaned file. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to address Cullen's first point in the reason to keep. The core principle that should guide our decision here is the WMF's March, 2007 board resolution which explicitly allows non-free images "to illustrate historically significant events". This is wrong. If you read the Resolution closely, they say this is the type of reasoning that a project can adapt to justify the inclusion of non-free, but projects are not required to follow that. In fact, Commons and de.wiki would be in violation of this as they do not allow any non-free. Obviously, we at en.wiki are not that restrictive, but we have taken this to say that, per WP:NFCI, historical photos can be used iff they are the subject of discussion - stricter than the Resolution but well within its guidance. The only requirement of image type that the Resolution is spelled out is the prevention of using non-free images of living persons. So the inclusion of this image is not something that is required by the Foundation's Resolution. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, I did not state that the WMF resolution somehow required that this image could be used, but rather that its wording did not forbid it. You previously have made comments to the effect that the WMF resolution somehow forbids use of this image. I do not propose inclusion in Commons or German Wikipedia, but right here. I believe that use of this image is just as policy compliant as the widespread use of video game screenshots without image commentary or the brand new NFCC images of Hendrix added to the article yesterday. Among many reasons, no one has made a convincing case that Canadian copyright law applies to mugshots. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You started by saying the WMF resolution "explicitly allows", and I'm saying that is not a point here. The resolution , in talking about historical images, says that's one type of reasonable expectation to allow. We have at en.wiki considered that, and as when NFC was crafted, tightened that to require sourced commentary about historically significant images. That is the baseline we use. Been that way for 5 years. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Then please explain, Masem, why the guideline includes the language "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously" and also please explain why video game screenshots are permitted without "sourced commentary" about those images? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "judiciously" is the key word, as well as the language at the top of NFCI "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.", and as repeated pointed out, we have plenty of images that simply identify Hendrix and we don't need another non-free that only does that. As as for screenshots, it says right there in NFCI#5 "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)". --MASEM (t) 03:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I consider use of this image to be "judicious", Masem, and I don't think that I have the reputation as an "injudicious" editor here. It is very clear to me that this particular image shows something about his arrest and trial that all other Hendrix images don't. Reliable sources spanning 43 years confirm that his attire at the time of arrest was the subject of testimony at his trial and "critical commentary" by those analyzing and reporting on the trial. It is not at all common that a person's attire when arrested is discussed by reliable sources covering their trial seven months later. That "critical commentary" about his attire when arrested is incorporated into this article just as surely as "critical commentary" of what a video game screenshot shows in large numbers of such articles, including featured articles, on this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Centpacrr, being of public record does not always mean being in the public domain, it simply means, at minimum, that any citizen can look up that information without barries. So that doesn't prove the image is free/public domain (if it could be should without doubt it was, this discussion is mostly moot). --MASEM (t) 22:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope it is noted that the initiator of this RfC has quite recently uploaded and added File:Jimi Hendrix burning his guitar at the Monterey Pop Festival, June 18, 1967.jpg to the article. It is a bit curious to argue FU violations on this image and then upload this one. The twist on NFCC #3 in the FUR is certainly interesting: "Only one image from the performance will be used to explicate the point." Any of the opposers see an issue with this image? Would it have made FA with this image in place? Doc talk 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Please noting how well that the rationale for the burning guitar images has clear quotes from sources that discuss that image in particular as a historic photo. That clearly meets NFCC#8 and it would not have had a problem at FAC. (Also there are no fair use violations on this page. It is violation of NON FREE policy). --MASEM (t) 01:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you actually believe the author is "unknown"? A shot from the same film footage was used as a cover for Rolling Stone.[2] Do you think the author's copyright ownership for commercial opportunity is being respected by us having it here? Do you believe that the NFCC #3 rationale is even close to valid or in the spirit of the policy? Doc talk 01:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, given how iconic the photo is from the sources, the fact that the photographer is unknown is a readily acceptable fact. Yes, it respects commercial opportunity because it is not from a press agency, and is shown at small size. In terms of NFCC#3 while it is more NFCC, it is presented with sources as an iconic image of Hendrix, and thus the article has the appropriate context to support the additional NFC. (Again - the goal of NFC is not to be zero, but to do it in exceptional case, and the rationale presented shows this is met). --MASEM (t) 01:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • There are multiple images of Hendrix burning his guitar from different angles. All are copyrighted. Nothing in the FUR speaks specifically to this one particular image. It is ridiculous to claim that using only one of these copyrighted images from the performance (taken by "unknowns") being used satisfies #3. Only one photo from the arrest is used. If we had more, I guess we could only use this one? Doc talk 02:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Okay, if there are multiple photos of the same unrecreatable event, an event that is talked about as a visual icon of that period, the application is still the same. The visuals of that image and their impact is discussed in sources, so one photo of the event makes sense. This is not true of the mugshot photo - yes, the event of his arrest is documented, but there's little about the visual impact of his mugshot to require seeing it to understand the event. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
              • I utterly reject this rationale. Who are you to decide which image has more "visual impact" over the other for everyone else? This is what #8 boils down to even among the image deletionista: I like it/I don't like it. Doc talk 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                • This is why NFCC#8 is best met with critical commentary about the image, if the inclusion is not otherwise obvious as listed at NFCI. The reader's understanding of the article - if they are completely unfamiliar with Hendrix or the culture of that period of time - is not harmed by the failure to include that image as the article text stands. The text explains the arrest and details of it, but the image does nothing to aid that understanding. Every other NFC image has text that the image expands on, and removal of the image would make it difficult to understand the topic (again, from the viewpoint of a reader unfamiliar with Hendrix, these image aid them. This is the standard test for image inclusion. No NFC enforcer is going out of their way to delete images they don't like, they are looking for cases of non-free that do not meet the policy requirement as to minimize non-free use on WP. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So its, "how can the reader possibly understand his arrest without the mugshot", but "that picture of him burning his guitar at Monterey is not needed and excessive"? Doc9871, do you really want to be on record fighting for the inclusion of his mugshot, which is not discussed in the article or by reliable secondary sources, while also arguing that the Monterey image should go? Which imparts more information to our readers? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You are the one beating this thing to death. You initiated this RfC. There is nothing more iconic about this image than this one[3], and your sources do not speak any more about this particular images being "iconic" over any of the others. The arrest is quite well-referenced, and the image supports the referenced section: and improves it. 3a is not meant to be focused on limiting non-free images for just one event, you know. Doc talk 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • There is this source, on a website associated with a magazine with professional editing. By the way, I have ordered copies of the three known books that have published the mugshot, as not everything is available online. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
        • ...Which doesn't talk about the mug shot expect putting it on a parapazzi-like top 25 list. I've seen editors try to justify information and articles based on similar types of lists where it's mostly navel gazing and these sources are routine rejected as reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Paparazzi refers to photographers following and photographing celebrities spontaneously for personal profit, not a police photographer on the public payroll carrying out an official duty. Works such as this are often not copyrighted, and no compelling case has been made that this image is. Navel-gazing is self-absorbtion, not discussion of a photo that's almost 45 years old. I am not saying that this website is a strong source, but it is not a non-existent source either. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
            • I said "paparazzi"-like. The magazine, complex.com, is described as a young men's lifestyle magazine, and to that end, it is far from an expert source on the life of Jimi Hendrix (as opposed to something like Rolling Stone). Secondly, all this says about the photo is that it is one of 25 interest mugshot photos of celebrities - the text below the image makes no mention of the mugshot. And what encyclopedic value is that? This type of list, meant to draw in magazine buyers and not to actually present researched information, are not reliable sources for this situation. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
              • "No mention", Masem? Please re-read carefully. They wrote, "Jimi's trippy gear was on full display in the ensuing mugshot." They are speaking to the relevant issue here - his attire, not his facial expression. By the way, where is the requirement that a source commenting on an iconic mugshot must be "expert" in the life of Hendrix? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                • That's barely critical commentary, effectively one word "trippy". And yes, as per WP:RS, we would expect material to be from sources that normally cover that field; a young men's livestyle magazine is the last place I'd expect to find experts about rock musicians of the 1950s-1960s. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • How do you know the image of him burning the guitar is the very same "iconic" image in the sources? You don't. I've proven that there are several others. It's just being used to illustrate the section: like the mug. If it's not an iconic image being discussed, it has the exact same odds of being here than the mug. How you can support one and not both is a great example of "creative policy interpretation". Doc talk 03:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
            • You're messing up the language. Let's be clear. There are likely many photographs of Jimi burning the guitar at the Monterrey show, let's call those "photos". There is also the more non-tangible image that the scene of Jimi burning the guitar based on these photos is meant to illicit. Now, clearly the sources are pointing to the non-tangible image as opposed to any specific photo. Any of the photos can be used to represent that image, so it doesn't matter which photo (unless one was free and the others were not), and as the image is discussed as a visual icon, it's use is proper. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
              • Very creative. "Non-tangible images". Sort of like. " non-tangible images that a reader could create from text alone"? I don't even know what to say... Doc talk 03:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                • You're not even trying to comprehend the different. Look up the word image (like here [4], and understand I'm talking about mental images, not physical. I've even tried to get you that want to keep this photo to think of how that mental image of Hendrix that the photo shows, sitting there at the mugshot and looking pissed off, is documented in sources. No one has been able to produce that. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. Contrast that to the burning guitar mental image, which has clearly been sourced as an iconic image of Hendrix's personality and performances, clearly passing NFCC#8. There are other possible NFCC issues it may fail, but the sources assure #8 is met. I've also tried to point out the closing rationale of the FFD that said if this can be used as a mental image of drug issues with Hendrix, it would be reasonable to keep NFCC#8 - but that needs sources to identify as such to avoid original research. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • But we already have identified two sources discussing the attire shown in the photo in the context of the arrest and trial, one from 1969 and the other from 2012, and I have added text to the article that discusses the significance of the attire shown in the photo to his trial and acquittal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Just describing without commentary is not "critical commentary", that's just eyewitnessing. And if you're talking (as best as I can tell) the text in this edit to describe the attire, again it is necessary to point that that was at the trial and not at the time the mugshot was taken so we have no idea if that's the same outfit. So no, text has not been added to require the photo (Again, can the mugshot be taken out and the details on the arrest understandable to someone without prior knowledge? Yes. It might seem like something lacking to a Hendrix fan, but that's not our readeship). --MASEM (t) 04:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • Are you actually reading the sources, Masem? The words "loud" and "mod" were used to describe his attire when he was arrested. He was dressed conservatively during the trial. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • I'm looking at the caption and present text (this is what we have to judge on) and the caption text says "At his trial, his attire was described as "loud" and "mod"." (by the way, that's unsourced presently, that would technically need to be removed as a direct quote). You probably meant "At his trial, his attire at the time of arrest ...". But how significant of critical commentary is that? I've seen three words now "loud", "mod", and "trippy", and the question is - most of these scream about color and a black and white photograph mugshot doesn't show that any more than the existing color pics like the Are You Experienced cover, the Woodstock image, and the burning guitar image. Thus, even if you could justify that NFCC #8 is met here, NFCC#3 fails due to other works showing the same. But I don't think three adjectives is considered close to sufficient to keep the image. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • No other known image shows his attire when he was arrested. Both the sources and the text in the article say much more than the quoted words "loud" and "mod". Here are the two summarizing sentences in the article: "In their cross examination of Canadian customs officials, defense attorneys "began casting doubt" about whether the drugs belonged to Hendrix. A prosecution witnesses conceded that Hendrix had drawn attention to himself at the airport, that he was wearing a headband and clothing described as "loud" and "mod", and that he had no drug paraphernalia in his luggage nor needle tracks on his arms." This image and no other shows him with the specific attire when he was arrested which was very distinctive in 1969: a wide-collared dark shirt open and exposing his chest, a beaded necklace and pendant, a vest with a very bold pattern, and his frizzy hair, long moustache and soul patch. The headband had been removed. Color is not necessary to show his attire when he was arrested, which was the subject of testimony at his trial. The transcript of his testimony also shows that he was questioned twice about how he was dressed in the airport. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                              • No, there's nothing in the quoted text that shows how his attire at the time of arrest was a key part of the court hearing. It came up in the trial but there's nothing to say it influenced, either way, the decision to nullify the charge. It's just an eyewitness account in a court record. Now, I'm completely aware of that period in history and know that those words ("loud" and "mod") had a demeaning nature at the time. But it's still original research to say that how he dressed at the time of his arrest affected the trial in any way. Now, I'm going to come back to the point of clarification made at the FFD closure and that I previously brought up at the FFD - his clothing look has to be tied into the problems he had with supposed drug-related incidents. There were sources going in the direction that by a certain point Jimi had come to expect to be targetted at airport security, and even at the Toronto arrest, they had taken precautions and were still arrested. That's halfway there - now you have to tie in, if possible, how his common attire like the outfit in the mugshot contributed towards the increased attention he got from police. That's not a guarantee the image is necessary , but at least now you'd be able to say "Jimi's attire attracted attention when he toured, and in one case, his "loud" and "mod" outfit lead to his arrest shortly after landing in Toronto in YYYY." Now there's some reasonable justification to show how his attire was part of the overall arrest. But that has yet to be shown, and it's not abundantly clear why Jimi was targeted often if it was solely or significantly to his attire, or similar that as a young Africian American rocker of the 1960s, that he was immediately a person of attention due to societial profiling and being a big name. Without anything that ties the attire due to why he was arrested, the picture is simply Yet Another Jimi Image, of which we have several, and thus is duplicatative and not necessary to understand the details of that specific arrest. --MASEM (t) 06:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • Again, you are entirely missing the point, Masem, and again I encourage you to carefully read the entire 2012 Torontoist source, including the appended 1969 newspaper articles. He was not arrested because of his attire. Rather, his attire when arrested was an element of his defense. He had a small amount of heroin and hash in his luggage. The defense theory was that he did not know the drugs were there and that he thought a fan had given him something like Bromo Seltzer a few days earlier when he was feeling ill at his LA hotel, and that it got tossed into his luggage. The defense bolstered this theory by pointing out behavior inconsistent with a junkie smuggling heroin across an international border: lack of drug paraphernalia, lack of needle tracks on his arms, attention seeking behavior at the airport, and the loud and mod clothing he was wearing when he was arrested and shown in the mugshot. Those five interrelated points were the core of his successful defense, as reported by reliable sources in 1969 and 2012. It would be original research if I extracted it from the trial transcript. Instead, the reporters chose to discuss it in their summary. The fact that reliable sources briefly summarizing the key parts of a three day trial discussed the attire and those other items I mentioned, and not many, many other things, shows that his attire was important. The attire had nothing to do with why he was arrested, but much to do with why he was acquitted which is more important in the end. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                                • I've gone through and read the article and the 3 attached clips from other papers in 1969. For one, and I might be missing that completely in the scans (but I've checked them twice), I don't see the word "mod" anywhere in describing the clothing he was in but that might be in the text of the clippings which are unsearchable. Nor do I see the claim that his attire at arrest was a reason that he was acquitted.
                                  That said, and going back to the FFD closing explanation, the way forward that moves the line a lot closer to inclusion involves a couple structural changes to the article that is clear from the Torontoist + attached sources. From reading those, it is clear that by 1968 he was seeing the errors of using drugs and started to clean up, and though would still get gifts of medallions, etc. that were laced with LCD, and keep them, such that by the time he landed in Toronto on MAy 3 1969 he was "clean". This information should be discussed in Drug Use and Violence, as to show that he was cleaning himself up. Then, as pointed out by the Torontoist, he was "Dressed as always like a psychedelic gypsy, he wore a purple vest, and brightly-coloured kerchiefs tied around his head, his left arm, and his knee, with a silver medallion dangling at his belt." as he was just coming from a concert at Cobo Arena in Detriot the previous night and didn't change outfits (which in fact you can see here [5] but I would not recommend using). As later described in the Torontoist "First, Wilson agreed with the defence lawyer that Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing." This I think is the claim you're trying to make how important the clothing was in the trial but that's interpretive because that's the last time his garb was mentioned. But this does say that "his clothing drew attention". Now we can say, with the above, that Jimi basically lands in Toronto in an outfit that screamed for attention, which ends up being what his mug shot has. It should also then be pointed out that this was a critical trial for Jimi to affirm that he was doing the right thing and called the acquittal "Canada has given me the best Christmas present I ever had" (again from Torontoist). Thus, with that, I'd removed the "Arrest and trial on drug changes", and keep it as all one section as it tells a strong story with the arrest and trial as a focal point. Also, as part of the Cross book is online I'd include some more out of that - how rock stars at the time were routinely checked for drugs and that Jimi's group did check themselves before entering customs just to make sure they were clean. The Rolling STone article [6] also has some choice quotes: (note this is some supposition from the author, but make it clear "Toronto authorities have been getting tough on the free-living hippie community of Yorkeville, more or less Toronto's version of the Haight-Ashbury, in recent months, and there is the possibility that Hendrix may have been caught in the squeeze. The populace of Toronto are a very conservative lot, and tend to look with suspicion upon anybody who looks and dresses a little different from themselves. Hendrix looks a lot different. Make an example of this freaky, frizzy-haired psychedelic spade (if you go by this reasoning) and maybe you can scare the freaks out of Yorkeville." and "Goldblatt naturally enough will not divulge conversations that took place later as he chauffered Hendrix around, but does recount that Hendrix' attitude was holy jesus, how did this happen?" (eg that gives us that look Jimi has in the mugshot) I'm sure there's more (the Cross book seems to have some too). But the key is to wrap this in an overall story about Jimi and drugs - both his misuse and his push away from it, and the reasons why they likely targeted him and the band on sight at the airport. Ignore how the clothes may have been part of the acquital as the stronger evidence (tracing exactly where the drugs came from, and Jimi's new take on avoiding drugs) appear to have been the deciding points.
                                  Would this put the image in the clear? I'd not call it a rock solid reason, but it is a HECK of a lot stronger than what is there now and addresses what the FFD closing explanation pointed, and I'd be more comfortable saying a weak keep on the basis that more research could reveal more. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • Now if the image was in color it would be justified? Ridiculous. Doc talk 04:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • That would not automatically make it justified, but it would be a small step in that direction, if the point of this photo was to show commentary about his "loud" outfit. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • It would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding to remove the burning guitar image to show he burned the guitar any more than it would be detrimental to their understanding to remove the mug to illustrate his arrest. That image itself is not is not critically sourced: the act of him burning the guitar is. That image is not the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima: it is not in itself an iconic image according to what we consider an image to be iconic. Doc talk 04:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • You again are confusing the different between photograph and mental images. The burning guitar image is critical for the mental image of Hendrix' attitude at the point. Though you can say he burnt a guitar and we can visualize that in our heads, its the mental image of him burning the guitar that is an iconic symbol that evokes various feelings. As sources describe that this mental image was iconic in this nature, it can be kept. Let's take the Iwo Jima example as further clarification: there's the famous photo, but there's also the mental image of the flag being raised. In this specific case both are critically discussed. The photo itself as it was used to create the basis of the memorial, and the mental image of the one of the definitely end events of WWII. The photo is in fact has major critical commentary that we are able to have an article on it. The photo (or any photo) of Jimi burning the guitar are nowhere near that importance so we don't have a separate article, but we certainly can establish the image as it evoke as critically discussed. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • There is zero evidence that this image is more includable to describe what text alone can over the mug, since it is only describing an incident that is sourced. Just like the incident that the mug describes. Your notion of "mental images" to twist the rationale of #8 I find, again, very creative. Doc talk 04:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • No, this is standard policy. It may not be spelled out like this, but we're talking textbook cases of these types of images. Note that I'm not saying that the burning guitar image is necessary clear as again it's now pushing the number of non-frees up again, but it has a much much much strong case of NFCC#8 retainment than the mugshot simply due to sourcing given for it. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • There is no sourcing for the particular burning guitar image, only the event. Is that so hard to understand? What is the difference when it comes to the image being "iconic", or really needing to be there to significantly increase the reader's understanding that he burned his guitar at the show? Doc talk 04:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • "The image of Jimi kneeling over his burning guitar at Monterey became one of the most iconic pictures of the era."[127]" Yes there is, and that's only one source, there's 2 more that were listed in the rataional and a quick Google search show many more. Hence this clearly meets NFCC#8 to see what experts consider an "iconic image", even if the simple act could be described in text. We could describe the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima in the same manner, or the infamous Times Square kiss, all in text, but it's the fact they are iconic is why we keep these images. There is nothing iconic about the mug shot. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • Ah, we're back to "mental images" now. Which image of him kneeling over his guitar? There are many! There is a huge difference between an "iconic image" and an "iconic event". The guitar image helps illustrate an iconic event: but it is not itself considered an iconic image. The arrest can be considered an iconic event as well, as it changed his life and career tremendously. Can you show that those sources are describing this particular image, and not a "mental image"? By showing the mug shot, we are significantly increasing the reader's understanding of the arrest by visual impact. Doc talk 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • Again, you're not getting the point. There might be many photos from different angles of the burning action (google image search for "jimi burning guitar" shows two unique angles), but it's not that any specific photo is discussed, but the iconic "mental image" of Jimi burning the guitar. There is not one canonical physical photograph, but there is a single mental idea there, and that idea is what is discussed in sources, and thus justified for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 06:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • You are also not getting my point. If there is such a "single mental idea" of this "iconic mental image": text alone could surely describe it without needing a copyrighted FU image. It passed FA without the image. #8 cuts both ways. I think both images are fine here: you want one gone. I don't see any reason to keep one over the other aside from favoritism. Doc talk 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • "Can be described by text alone" captures a LOT of NFC that we allow on the site. The evaluation of whether an image which could be replaced by a concise bit of text or non-free is also weighted by its educational content - eg NFCC#1 looks to the equivalency of the material - as well as all other points. So just because something can be described by text doesn't mean that text is an equivalent replacement. Here, "Jimi lit his guitar on fire" is clearly easy text that technically doesn't need a picture to see, but because sources have given attention to how that mental image of Jimi setting the guitar on fire being iconic, there is a lot of educational weight to show one example of this event (using common sense and best quality) so the reader can envision why this is iconic. So it's use is fine by #1 and #8. Again, now we're pushing #3 (minimal use) on this page and justification to see which images are better than others to keep (though there is no hard number to meet, its just a point we have to think about. ) --MASEM (t) 06:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • The intention to push the limits of #3 in order to get rid of the image was announced from the onset. I do not buy any of the mental image mumbo jumbo if it only applies to things you like. You are pointing to policy without even quoting it; you are interpreting a massively interpretable policy and declaring it as policy. Where do you see "so the reader can envision why this is iconic" being a part of FU image policy? No "educational weight" with the mug whatsoever? It's just your opinion, and your opinion carries no greater weight than the ones who want the image to remain. I am playing devil's advocate with the guitar image because it's exactly what many would say about any FU image. Your interpretation is not the cut-and-dried "law", and that's why we don't have a solid consensus on this image. Again. Doc talk 07:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • I'm speaking of ~6 years of practical experience dealing with NFC, knowing how consensus flies for numerous cases that cannot be readily documented beyond what we have at NFC. Part of it may be opinion, but it is also knowing how most equivalent cases in the past have gone when (for the mugshot) there is this little critical discussion about it and there are plenty of other images of Hendrix (Free and non-free, even ignoring the burning guitar) to make NFCC#3 (minimum use of non-free) and NFCC#1 ( replacable non-free with free existing images of Hendrix). Its completely fine to play devil's advocate and point out the holes, but I'm showing you has that the guitar burning image has tons of direct sourcing about it, no dancing around "this so that" that has been offered for the mugshot, and that at least from a NFCC#8 and #1 standpoint, it would clearly pass those metrics. And that's knowing how NFC has been handing from the last ~6 years, so that's not personal opinion, that's practice experience. NFC is a lot more objective than you believe it is, though it does have subjective calls to it. --MASEM (t) 07:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                          • I've certainly never said you're not experienced with NFC at all. This isn't my first day dealing with it either. You cannot accurately claim that the particular burning guitar image is the same one discussed in the sources, so that argument is out the window. You are mixing the notion of "iconic image" with "sourced iconic event that text alone cannot describe without a supporting FU image". The same argument you are using to delete the mug shot, you are using to support the other image. I do not buy your interpretation of FU image policy, and your interpretation is not "the way it is". Doc talk 08:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • The fact you're trying to argue the different being how an iconic mental image documented by sources should not have a picture because no single photo that shows that event itself is well documented in the same way, is basically wikilawyering. While you can play devil's advocate to argue against this image being include, it is very obviously clear that the reason to keep this image well outweighs any reason to keep the mugshot image by all the points of NFCC being considered. The problem here in the first place is that people found this mugshot and are trying to justify its inclusion, when in reality, the issue should have been, "we're writing this section about his arrest in Toronto, would an NFC image help a reader to understand this section?" That's how the question should be approached knowing that NFC is meant to be used in exceptional cases, it is not the reverse to make article conform to include NFC. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's be clear about one thing. A close of "no consensus" is actually just another "no consensus to remove the image", since this is a thinly-veiled roundabout FfD. To close with no consensus and then remove it, saying there is "no consensus to keep", will be staunchly appealed. Consensus has had it here for over four years, and that is not going to be swept under the rug. This is just a massive waste of time. Get over it, keep both FU images, and move the heck on. Doc talk 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not true. The non-free content criteria are quite clear about where the burden of proof lies. If there is no consensus to keep the image, those wishing to keep it have failed to provide a valid rationale, and so it should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
From our wacky little policy regarding consensus: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." 'Nite. Doc talk 12:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
FFDs involving non-free are difference since the Foundation asks that media without acceptable rationales be deleted in a timely manner. The closer gave reason to discuss this image more to try to find if the rationale can be improved, so keeping it to aid in that discussion makes sense, but if there was no chance it could be improved, it should have closed "delete". --MASEM (t) 15:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Doc, if there has been a consensus to include the image here for four years, then why not link us to the discussion that determined said consensus? I never commented on its inclusion before. That its inclusion had not yet been challenged does not automatically imply that there was clear consensus to have it here in the first place. Did you ever ask anyone for their opinion, or did you just assume that you were a consensus of one? A no-consensus close here means "no consensus to include", just as a no-consensus close at the FFD meant that there was no consensus to delete. The purpose of this RfC is to determine if there is consensus to retain, not if there is consensus to remove. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
See this flowchart?[7] Before you removed the image we were at the first step: "previous consensus". "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You came and removed the image, and the fun begins. You deliberately worded the RfC so that it serves your goal - you should have worded it the other way. This is a deletion discussion no matter how you want to dress it up, and hopefully the closing admin will see right through the real purpose of the RfC. You are saying there never was consensus to have it here, which is incorrect. What the purpose of the RfC really is is to develop a new consensus to remove it. And That's how it should be looked at by the closer. Doc talk 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • New addition: According to author Bob Gula, "When Jimi torched his guitar onstage at the Monterey Pop Festival, it became one of, if not the single greatest iconic moment in the first half-century of rock; his image as the psychedelic voodoo child conjuring uncontrollable forces is a rock archetype." (Gula, Bob (2008). Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History. Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-35806-7, page 121)
Doc9871, are you really arguing that the mugshot is more iconic than the image of Hendrix burning his guitar? If so, why? Also, do you have any reliable secondary sources that even acknowledge that the mugshot exists? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Masem, do you think that this addition remediates the issue of whether the sources are referring to one particular still only versus the moment as a whole? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it clarifies which specific photo/still image captures the moment to make that photo/still "iconic", though I think the one image you picked is the one most commonly tied when discussing the moment (judging by coverage). But the event of him burning the guitar, depicted by any of those pictures, is clearly considered iconic so choose one to represent it is fine. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That's what I meant, not that its only the one image that is considered iconic, but that any image of that moment is iconic. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and as long as one or more of the sources are using the same still you included to describe the moment as iconic, yes, it's not the still but the moment, but we're assured that still is what (at least) one source considers a way to represent it. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Masem, do you mean like this one: Author Michael Heatley wrote: "The iconic image by Ed Caraeff of Hendrix summoning the flames higher with his fingers will forever conjure up memories of Monterey for those who were there and the majority of us who weren't." (Heatley, Michael (2009). Jimi Hendrix Gear: The Guitars, Amps & Effects that Revolutionized Rock 'n' Roll. Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-3639-7, page 80) The same image that I uploaded is printed in the Heatley book, and its the one he's referring to in the above quote. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, as to differentiate it from, say, a recreation of the event. It's sourcing that that photo represents the event (you can put that in the rationale if you feel like it). --MASEM (t) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You would have to specifically mention the sourced material about the Caraeff image to ensure that it's in line with WP:NFC#UUI#7, since it is indeed licensed by Getty Images.[8] The disclaimer at the bottom of the page may be worth reading... Doc talk 11:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right that if this is Gettys Image, that we'd have to use a different one that isn't from Gettys or be exact that the photo (not mental image) is the one of sourced commentary to meet NFCC#2. My only concern here is that there are cases of Gettys inappropriately claiming content as their own (they were only founded in 1995 so its not their image, and while I can trace who gave them the image, the original source is questionable, and I'm not immediately seeing any sources that use that image source it to Getty). Yes, I would still use another non-free that is not part of Gettys or any other press collection just to make sure. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Getty, Corbis and the like usually buy up entire image banks at a time for big, big bucks. They definitely claim to own the rights to this image; whether it is a false claim or not I have no idea. I would guess it was not a false claim, if I had to. Doc talk 15:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's why I think a different photo that doesn't belong to these groups would be better. The oddity with this one is if you follow the contributor link on that page, you'll find all of the photos contributed from this "Michael Ochs Archive", except the Jimi one, which is listed as "Premium Archive" and requires special inquiry for licensing. And if it is the case that every version of Jimi burning the guitar is now at Gettys or equivalent, then the image can't be used; the only way one of those would be able to be used would be if the event of burning the guitar was a notable article on its own as to justify the use of images normally disallowed under NFCC#2. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • From the WP:NFCCE- "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." (emphasis added) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The discussion seems somewhat confused. It would probably fare better (i.e. have tighter focus) as an NFCR. So I suggest to close the RfC, and open a corresponding NFCR. Aquegg (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It's been at NFCR. Then FFD. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • How bizarre. Anyway, I think we can conclude. Despite our sterling efforts, contextual significance for this image in this article, has not been clearly established (certainly, there is not consensus that it has). What to do from this position is not subject to our general procedures on consensus; it's subject to the WFM resolution on NFC, i.e. it should be removed from the article. If we subsequently find sources that do clearly establish contextual significance, then great, of course it can be re-added. Aquegg (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Everything we do here is subject to our consensus policy. When there is no agreement to delete an image (or even agree that is fails NFCC), we refer to WP:NOCONSENSUS. This discussion falls into both of the first two points there, and policy tells us what to do in those situations. When 1/2 the people are confident it fails the NFCC and half are not, it is not a clear default to delete. The way to do this is probably best done at another round at NFCR, as you originally said. The closing admin will take all points regarding the NFCC into consideration. That is a far more proper venue than this. Doc talk 19:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Doc, do you really think that a local consensus at the Hendrix article overrides the entire WMF? If that were true, then me and 9 of my Wikibuddies could do almost anything we wanted. WMF owns Wikipedia, so our consensus, which is a decidedly small sample, cannot take precedence over WMF directives. Wikipedia is not a democracy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm glad you brought up WP:CONLIMITED. You cannot claim that simply because you and any "buddies" say it fails the NFCC that it "just does, end of story" for the community. Remember the FfD's? We determine this at NFCR, not this "RfC". Doc talk 20:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
              • IMO, the main reason that the last FFD stalemated was Cullen's repeated use of walls of text (see proof by verbosity) laced with factual inaccuracies and strawmen that mislead everyone who came to the discussion, and the same thing happened here. Cut to the chase: you are still arguing that we should include a non-free image that is not the subject of critical commentary in reliable secondary sources or the actual article. You fought tooth-and-nail against the Monterey image for all the same reasons, so remind me again how this is about "the reader" and not your penchant for all things nefarious. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Don't you ever label me as being "nefarious". That is absolutely a personal attack, and I request that you strike it. Doc talk 20:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • Out of respect for you, I'll strike the comment, but FTR I didn't say that you were nefarious, I said that you are quite interested in nefarious topics, such as drug busts for example. Am I wrong about that? Aren't you especially interested in crime related topics? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Thanks. While I am interested in crime subjects, it not my main focus: music articles I have edited extensively alongside the "nefarious" ones.[10] Doc talk 20:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • Well, I'm really sorry that I erroneously generalized. I guess the point I was trying to make is that this does not really seem to be about the readers or the guidelines so much as your personal desire to retain this particular mugshot. Will you please acknowledge that its a non-free file that is not, to the best of our knowledge, discussed in any reliable secondary sources? The argument should have ended there, IMO.GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Apology accepted, and I really don't hold grudges against good-faith editors no matter how ornery my words can be at times. I think a stronger FU rationale can be developed, as it was with the other photo (no thanks to me ;P). I see no rush to delete it until then; and I stand by my assertion that this RfC should be moved to the proper venue. Doc talk 21:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • Thanks and same. FWIW, if I could develop a stronger FU rationale I would, but from what I can tell, there aren't any reliable secondary sources that critically discuss the image as anything notable. I still havn't seen an RS that even acknowledges that the mugshot exists. The image adds little, and it is not needed to explicate the point that Hendrix was arrested. We cannot source any critical commentary about the actual image so it should be removed until that changes. A general discussion about the arrest does not give us a valid rationale for completely disregarding a principle that the WMF has expressly asked us to respect. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Heh! Not too long ago we were rationalizing an "unknown" unsourced image, and it was going to pass because of the "mental image" of the incident. Now that we know who it was from, things change radically, don't they? I'm not holding anyone's hand here. But I will tell you again: you need to change the wording of this RfC to reflect the seeking of a new consensus, or move it to NFCR or FfD. There is simply no chance that consensus policy is going to be twisted into removing the image as this RfC is worded. Doc talk 07:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
                • NFCR is, IMO, the best forum for this discussion. I doubt it will make any difference to the substance of the arguments (it seems that everything that could be said, has already been said here), but just so that no one can cry "foul", it's probably the best thing to do. Perhaps we can just reference or paste this RfC discussion to save time.—Aquegg (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've opened an NFRC here: Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. This RfC should not be closed early; it should remain open for a full 30 days. The wording should not be altered at this point, in fact doing so could be said to invalidate the process altogether. On or around February 15, I'll request that an uninvolved admin close the RfC and determine if any consensus has been achieved; we've come this far so why stop now? I've linked to the recent FFD and this RfC at NFCR, so hopefully editors will show some restraint and make succinct comments there, avoiding the walls of text that have, IMO, bogged down and confounded the last FFD and this RfC. If we keep our opinions brief at NFRC I think there will be a better chance of a less convoluted discussion, which will allow for a more informed closure. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Any admin worth their salt will know the difference between consensus having "been achieved" and successfully achieving a new consensus. Of course the wording should be changed, as it does not reflect how we handle the consensus policy at all. There's no invalidating the RfC process; as this was an improperly worded RfC all along. I further believe that keeping this improper RfC open, while the proper NFCR is also open, amounts to forum shopping. This needs to be closed regardless of that. Doc talk 03:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Everyone knows that you will appeal any and all results that displease you. I will not close this RfC early and you really shouldn't be so aggressive, IMO. The NFRC was partly your idea, but was that just a way to get this RfC closed because you aren't liking the possible outcome? This RfC will determine if there is a consensus to include the image at this specific article. The NFRC will determine if the image is appropriate for Wikiepdia in general, but they are not the same thing, Doc. E.g., the image need not be included here to be included on Wikipedia, should someone write a dedicated topical article about the arrest and trial. There may not be consensus to include the image here in the first place, but if I close this RfC, you will cry foul when I open another, regardless of the language. Why do you think that you can force the image on the article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
        • You do not appear to understand the process of how we achieve consensus around here. You yourself helped establish the consensus for the image quite some time ago, and I have explained why repeatedly. I have far more experience in this area than you: you still refuse to accept that it passes #4 and strike that lame non-reason to delete from the NFCR! I am done explaining policy to you, as you are unwilling to listen. I think your notions of me or anyone else "forcing" the image into the article quite interesting indeed. Doc talk 02:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Update. - FTR, Under arrest: a history of the twentieth century in mugshots by Giacomo Papi does not mention or include the Hendrix mugshot from Toronto, May 3, 1969. The book briefly mentions Hendrix, in passing, and only to say that he died in 1970 along with Janis Joplin. So, not only does the book fail to discuss the mugshot, it does not even include it along with dozens of others. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Which one of the 10 points of the NFCC claims that the image must be discussed in multiple secondary sources in order for it to pass the NFCC? Doc talk 04:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you asserting that contextual significance is achieved because sources talk about the arrest? Sources talk about nearly every event in Hendrix's short life, so your logic would seem to open up the possibility of all kinds of images that pertain to events that are discussed. Probably the most important thing that ever happened to Hendrix was meeting Chas Chandler, but we do not include any images of Jimi and Chas; I guess by your logic we should? Please don't make this personal, Doc. I might not have the image experience that you have, but are you really saying that me and everyone who agrees with me is wrong and only you understand what's going on here? This is about your ego, IMO, not the readers or our guidelines. The image is not in any way iconic or historical; therefore we are required to discuss the actual image per NFCC#8. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • How you can claim that any image of Hendrix burning his guitar should be included to describe that sourced event, then turn around and say that the only image we have of Hendrix's arrest cannot be used to describe that sourced event because the actual image is not discussed in detail shows how fast and loose you are playing with this thing. Doc talk 03:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) The Monterey image is described as iconic by numerous reliable sources. 2) The event was a seminal moment in Hendrix's life, and indeed in rock history, 3) The actual image is the object of sourced critical commentary in the article. None of this can be said about the mugshot. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Update. - I just received my copy of Mug Shots: An Archive of the Famous, Infamous, and Most Wanted by Raynal Pellicer and it does not mention the mugshot with any in-line text. There is absolutely zero critical commentary directed at the image, and all it says about the trial was: "Hendrix stated in his defense that [the drugs] had been put there without his knowledge". There is no mention of his attire, and no mention of the actual image. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Just as a comment in watching the various edits today on the drug charges section, it begs the question is if the larger issue of how encyclopedic is this section? Hendrix getting arrested and going to trial on possession changes, and how they weighed him down during that period, this is important, but the fact that the trial was over with quickly with the charged dropped tells me that in the larger picture of Hendrix's life, this was minor. Or at least reading all the sources presented in the previous section, the focus is very wrong - where's mention of Hendrix saying he was going off drugs before these events, and where the fact that he was cleared was considered validation for himself (again, all the in the sources above).

I know that those trying to keep the mugshot image have been trying to show the text discusses the pictures as been asked, but when you take a step back, you have to ask yourself, consider the rest of the article, is this now getting out of hand in terms of what is encyclopedic? That section now reads more like a timeline for a trial that was over with quickly, all so that some descriptive words said by witnesses could be inserted into the text.

Basically, this is putting the cart before the horse - non-free should only be used if the text requires it, not vice-versa, particularly when the text and prose has to be shaped and guided this much to try to justify inclusion. And given that this just passed FA with a lot less text about the trial, one has to ask if this extra text now invalidates the FA status (not enough to demote it but enough to ask for an FAR on the text alone). I know we've been asking for text to discuss the image, but having stayed out of the discussion here for a good part of today but seeing the editing changes go by, it seems the depth that this is being covered is out of whack just to try to justify the image. If the image was truly iconic - like the Monterrey guitar burning image, the text that would need to be included to support would have easily fallen out of sources and to flow naturally with the existing text. I don't mean to demean the efforts being done here, but this is what I see on stepping back and seeing the overall situation.

Let me offer the hypothetical case - if the mugshot was a free image, would the same amount of text presently in the article be used to discuss the trial in terms of encyclopedic coverage? If we are just adding text to carve out the slot for NFC, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The coverage in the article of the arrest and trial before this issue came up was clearly inadequate and cited to a single low quality source. Even if the image is deleted, which I hope it isn't, the section should stay. There are many biographical sources that describe the negative impact that this seven month episode had on his four year career as a star. The charges were serious, and he faced long prison time. I added quotes from Noel Redding's autobiography describing the deeply negative emotional impact it had on Hendrix, but similar assessments are in the best biographies by Shapiro and Glebeek, which devotes seven pages to the incident, and also by Charles Cross, who discusses it on eight pages. The trial was not over with quickly. It was a seven month process with several court appearances requiring Hendrix to return to Toronto before the trial date, then a three day trial, and eight hours of jury deliberation. The charges were most assuredly not dropped, they were pursued all the way. He was acquitted, and nobody uses the word "dropped" to describe an acquittal. Please read the sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328, your pathological misrepresentations of the facts are really concerning. Shapiro and Glebbeek devote about 4.5 total page sides to the incident (with much of it not about Toronto) in a book that's more than 750 pages long, which is about .6% of the book. This is the equivalent of about 72 words for this article to have parody. Currently, the article devotes about 455 words to the incident, which is more than 6 times as much relative space. Cross also devotes about 4.5 page sides to the incident in a book of 375 pages, or 1.2% of the book, which would be the equivalent of 144 words for this article. Either way, we currently devote 3–6 times as much space to the incident as these two bios do, and neither book includes the mugchot, BTW. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, Shapiro and Glebbeek give background on the history of drug busts of musicians on pages 356 and 357, as a direct lead-in to their coverage of the Toronto incident. They mention the incident on pages 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 367, 368, 402 and 403. Page 404 is a full page smiling photo of him at the courtroom with two women on the last day of the trial. All or most of pages 358, 360, 361, 402, 403 and 404 (the photo) are devoted to the incident. Cross mentions the incident on pages 252, 253, 254, 255, 259, 264, 280, 281, 282 and 291. All or most of pages 252, 253, 254, 281 and 282 are devoted to the incident. By the way, your percentages are off by orders of magnitude. It is other books that published the mugshot, and I never said these did. Thank you for your kind words. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You're counting every page that mentions the arrest even if its not devoted to the arrest? Sorry, you're right; I put the decimal in the wrong place—math was never my strong suit—but at least the math was correct. 1% of a 750 page book is 75 pages; .1% is 7.5 pages, so even if you are right then S&G's book devotes one tenth of one percent of its pages to the arrest and trial whereas the Wikipedia article currently devotes 455 words out of 11,665, which is 3.9% of the total words, or almost 4 times as much coverage as Shapiro and Glebbeek. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Many of the pages I listed, are more substantive than just a passing mention but less than half of the page content. This is typical indexing practice. I know that you will consider me pedantic, but 75 pages is 10% of a 750 page book, and 7-1/2 pages is 1%. But why argue about percentages, and why argue at all? Either the image will be kept or it will be deleted. So be it. The coverage and referencing of the arrest and trial is better now than it was when this image deletion discussion began. Perhaps it can be tightened a bit. I could do it now, but don't want to get you upset. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right again. So S&G devote 1% of their book to the arrest and trial and we devote 3.9% of the total words of our article, but its still four times the coverage, right? Feel free to edit the section, it won't make me upset, but if you add stuff that's not sourced I will remove it. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The very first time the image was challenged was, ironically, not for NFCC issues. It was per NPOV, specifically UNDUE.[11] 4% of the article text devoted to possibly the most damaging legal incident of his life is not giving the incident undue weight, IMHO. It's almost akin to Jim Morrison's Miami arrest: it screwed his life up a whole lot.
And I didn't even see what you said to me in the above section ("This is about your ego, IMO, not the readers or our guidelines") until just now. Nice. Doc talk 02:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
If the image were free, we certainly wouldn't be here. It would remain in the article as it has been, and any gripes would have to go towards NPOV only. The reason this RfC is invalid because of the wording is just simple logic. Let's look at the example RfC: "Is the photo in the History section relevant? Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship?" The answer to that question would be either yes or no, and consensus would be determined from there. This is a content dispute, mind all of you. The wording of this RfC, as it is, muddles the notion of consensus to delete by a default of "no consensus" when it is already known that there is no consensus to delete the image. If the RfC were worded more like the example, consensus could actually have a chance to form. Like, "Should this image remain in the article?" That's soliciting a yes or no answer, and a real attempt to build consensus. Declaring "no consensus=delete" is not only a red herring, it is the opposite of what policy says to do in no consensus situations. The RfC wording is fatally flawed. I have asked the filer to change it (per "suggestions for responding"), and they have steadfastly refused to do so. For good reason, I contend. The outcome of this RfC is unfairly predetermined, whereas the process at every other concurrently open board on this same issue is not. Appeals of highly questionable decisions are never inherently "bad" things. The groundwork for an appeal of this RfC is not dismissible. Doc talk 07:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Drugs

(ec)Then might I suggest going to some of the suggestions I made before to at least develop the "story" of how Hendrix used drugs, then after a few incidents, got off them (and was fully off by the arrest)? This is all stuff that the Toronotist article and embedded articles go into , as well, as I think , the Rolling Stone report. Even if the books that Gabemc found lack discussion of the mugshot, if we go back to BDD's closing reasons, if you build out the story of drug use within Hendrix' life - the arrest and trial being a central part of that - then we can review the text and NFC use. The text right now feels like it jumps to the arrest and trial as to justify the NFC. I can't assure that the NFC will be justified (in my opinion) with all that added, but it will definitely flesh out the article for the better, period. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, Masem, that the arrest and trial can be better integrated into a biographical narrative about his drug use (which alone didn't seem to cause him serious problems), his drinking (which he had a real problem with when combined with drugs), and the general pressures of stardom. I believe that for chronological reasons, this material should precede the section on his death, as it seems unusual to me to have this material about his life come after his death. But I think it is safe to say based on reliable sources that he was using drugs quite regularly during his adult years, and that the testimony about not using drugs were lies, successful ones, to help him get acquitted. That being said, it appears likely that he was truly innocent of the specific Toronto drug charges. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I personally would not have an issue letting the present issue of the applicability of the mugshot image be put aside so that there can be a more focused dialog on exactly how to structure this part of the article and what should be included. After that's cleared up to address points being raised here, then we can come back to address the NFCC but for the time being, letting it stay is a reasonable good faith compromise. Otherwise, the issues are too conflated. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That is very gracious and I think a step in the right direction, Masem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure I wasn't implying I had the final say and only with my say should that be done. Just offering this as a solution to separate out the issues (the content of the prose, vs the NFCC) that I would be comfortable in and that I think works under AGF and NFCC policy. :) --MASEM (t) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This article already devotes more of its content to his drug use then do his bios, so it won't be difficult to show that you are pushing an WP:UNDUE drug WP:POV out of spite. Shame on you, but I never once thought that this was about Hendrix or our readers. Be proud, Masem, that you are encouraging a big mistake that will ruin the integrity of this article. Anyway, I hope your sources are impeccable, because mine certainly are. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but the way this article was presented seemed to imply he was drug-free around the time of the arrest, but now there are sources (from RSs) that say different, NPOV says we have to present both views. This probably stresses more that the details of the trial are extraneous to actually talking about Hendrix and his apparent drug use in a balanced light. Note that you can write these in a manner to make it clear that whether he was or wasn't has been proven. Not exact wording to use, but "Hendrix stated in such-and-such an interview he was clean (source 1), but Mr. Smith of Y claimed that Hendrix continued to use drugs (source 2)". In that way, we are neither praising or condemning Hendrix, we are only reporting what the facts say. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Monterey Purple"

On Hendrix's drug use beyond the Canadian incident: why is there no mention in this article of Hendrix's use of "Monterey Purple" acid, or that it inspired the song Purple Haze? It is certainly at least reported that Hendrix was inspired by Owsley Stanley's infamous batch.[12][13] I believe the first time I read about it, years ago, was in the autobiography of Papa John. I can find more sources, but I am surprised there's nothing already here about it. Doc talk 03:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Because its a load of garbage. "Purple Haze" was about a dream, not drugs and all reliable sources agree. Thanks, Masem! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
If there are sources saying this and from reliable ones (like those ID'd above) then per NPOV this article is fundamentally broken, even if it paints Hendrix in a negative light. Both sides need to be presented. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, what I'm telling you is that I've read every source available, and the preponderance of sources will show that his use was not above average for a 1960s rock star; you are pushing a negative POV. Shame on you! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, as it is now, only one side is presented; the positive side is missing, not more negative. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
If his use was compared to that of a typical 1960s rock star (which implies some use, not zero), this article isn't saying that. It's telling the wrong story, and in what you're trying to do, put Hendrix on a higher pedestal. You have to summarize how the sources cut the story, not pick and choose one side. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, until a few minutes ago the article never said that he wasn't a junkie. What are you talking about? The article neutrally states that he used drugs. I think you need to re-read a few sections, because you seem confused. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about the types of reliable sources that Doc listed above. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, the preponderance of sources suggest that both of Doc's sources are repeating a falsehood. If you want to know what "Purple Haze" is really about look here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, Hendrix wrote "Purple Haze" in December 1966, but the Monterey festival took place in June 1967. So how could Hendrix have named a song after a drug that was named after an event that had not yet taken place? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not so much the lyrics of Purple Haze, but it is the fact that numerous sources (those above and reading others) clearly state that "Monteray Purple" was used by a LOT of bands including Hendrix at the Monteray festival. Though that is there (though you could link Stanley and the like). If it is the case that there's a lot of misconceptions that some RSs have put out and that other RSs have commented in counterclaims like Purple Haze being claimed to be a drug-induced lyrics when it was before all that and stated by Hendrix to have been a dream, then have a section in there about this, as long as you can source. That line about countering being a junkie is a good start, but add some of these other "counter" facts like the origin of Purple Haze. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Masem, this overview article is absolutely not the place to start going into details about which of his songs are and which aren't about drugs. You should know that the place for that is at the album and song articles. You are making a big mistake here by not trusting my editorial judgment. I worked on this article for several years and I read everything I could to present a balanced and fair overview of his life, which I have done. The is POV pushing and its UNDUE and I will demonstrate that if needed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
        • If there is a sourced misnomer about Hendrix and drug use that can be disproven, this article should be discussing that. The Purple Haze is an example of one such case where some sources have reported it was based on drug use but you state you can prove otherwise. So state that. That's completely within reason and presents two arguments and the side that has been validated. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I think that you are wrong and my experience at FAC tells me this. This is an overview article that is written in summary style, meaning there should not be exhaustive sections about topics that are better handled in a dedicated sub-article. How about, Jimi Hendrix and drug use? Please read WP:UNDUE. This article already devotes more space to this topic than do any of his bios. That's classic undue. Don't you realize that not every topic can be explored at depth in a summary style article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, are you really behind this? I thought you were Hendrix fan, but now you want to build a case that he was a junkie just to win this silly disagreement over the mugshot. I am so disappointed in you, and in Wikipedia in general. I worked on this article for three years, and I didn't gloss over his drug use. I am so saddened by this extortion tactic. I hope you are proud of yourself! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In this interview, Noel Redding says Hendrix "loved" LSD, and believes that it helped Hendrix write lyrics(!)[14] This article, based on excerpts from a book already used as a source in that section, makes a similar claim on LSD's influence on Hendrix's music.[15] Now, I'm not saying he was a "junkie", but there's so little about LSD and its reputed influence on his life. He's not a leading figure in the "acid rock" genre for nothing. Doc talk 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This is revenge for opposing the mugshot, and you will look really bad when this is over if you don't already. You are POV pushing drugs and crime out of revenge, which is disruptive editing. Good thing all your Wikibuddies will protect you. The record will show who was wrong. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at the recent history of the article, you have added a ton of stuff to the drug use and arrest sections. If it's undue: why are you doing that? Doc talk 21:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, you have added a ton of material to those sections, very recently. How can you add all that material, increasing the % of the article devoted to drug use, and then complain that too much is devoted to it? Baffling. And no, I don't do revenge. I'm in my forties and have been a Hendrix fan since I was 15: I have been aware for decades that LSD was a major influence on him. These sources reaffirm that when the article does not. Doc talk 21:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The arrest had nothing to do with LSD, that's way this seems like a revenge dispute, because you want to push inaccuracies on the article discussing things that don't even belong anyway. Binksternet, are you glad that you picked the right bully? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm getting a little annoyed now with you calling me a troll and a bully. I suggest you calm down, stop the personal attacks, and AGF. This is not your article, and you are not the final authority of what can and can't be included. I don't need your permission to add something here, you know. Doc talk 21:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto, but I wasn't implying that you needed permission to add something, but if you intend to cherry-pick some garbage off goolg ethat the preponderance of sources does not support then I will revert you. Its just that you are floating all these vague concerns that really cannot be addressed, and you hinted about sabotage from the get-go about the image might fail the FAC and so be it. I feel massively bullied by you, and I will stop calling you that when I stop feeling bullied. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doc9871, you have the story backwards. Hendrix met Owsley at Monterey and Owsley gave Hendrix some purple acid tabs that Owsley later started calling "Purple Haze" after the Hendrix song, not the other way around. You can find details of the story in Perry, John (2004). Electric Ladyland. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1571-4. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have anything backwards - it's what the source says, not me. You are becoming increasingly hostile. You falsely accused me of hounding you, which means following you around to various places on WP and harassing you. Without hesitation I told you I would never post on your talk page again. You have called me a troll, a bully, you've said my "ego" is more important to me than the quality of my edits, etc. I bring up a point on the talk page about his LSD use, and you accuse me of "revenge tactics". I am rapidly tiring of your seething animosity towards me, which is totally unwarranted. If you think I'm bullying you, you can report me to AN/I or wherever and let others decide if that is the case. Doc talk 22:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doc, are you saying that we must include all information whether supported by several reliable sources or not? Will you please acknowledge that the song supposedly about Monterey acid was composed 7 months before Monterey? How is that possible? I feel like I'm on acid right now! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep! We must include everything under the sun. What's a "reliable source", BTW? He used to cut his forehead, put acid and heroin on the cut, and hide it under the headband. Please add that at your earliest convenience. Doc talk 22:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, one of your sources is an obit of Owlsley, which is not the best choice to source facts about Hendrix, but can't you see that its a chronological impossibility that a song was named after an event that occurred six months later? I've never seen a good sources for the headband thing, but I heard that when I was 15 also. Will you please address the issue of chronology. Monterey happened in June 1967, but Hendrix recorded "Purple Haze" on January 11, 1967. Monterey happened six months later, in mid-June. So its not even possible. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This gets back to my point: Hendrix's history with drugs has has many many many rumors. If you can source to debunk those rumors, which might require citing specific instances like the Purple Haze, you should be doing that here, as part of the section on drugs. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, and this gets back to my point that you don't seem to know what you are talking about. There are currently 1400 words devoted to drugs and 1200 devoted to his three studio albums. Why aren't you concerned about WP:UNDUE, to give more coverage to drugs than his albums? Are you really saying what I think you are saying? This is the most bizarre thread of all time. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
As we have separate articles for the studio albums, the word count thing is not an issue. My point is that when I was checking on somethings earlier, there were sources out there that attached the lyrics of Purple Haze to being a reference to drugs. That, as sources I've seen and as you argued, is of course false, but it does extend as part of the larger false impression that Hendrix took a lot of drugs. You have one sentence (at least, last I checked) that countered the larger myth about Hendrix being a heavy drug user. You are in a completely fair position to add more to show examples of how some of these common myths are simply incorrect, an example being the Purple Haze lyrics, or there's Doc's point to consider. As long as you can reliable source these counter points to show that the myths are inaccurate/false, that's completely fine to do, and you shouldn't be worrying about word count. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, 1400 words or 14% of the article is devoted to drugs and 1200 words to his studio albums. Why do you think that there should be more coverage of drugs than his music? Why can't we peel it all of into an article titled Drug use of Jimi Hendrix. I think I'll do exactly that, thanks for the idea! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Both obits say the same thing. Whether it or is not "true" is not up to me. But those sources do say that. That's all I'm saying. How did they get their info? Your guess is as good as mine. (The headband thing was "sarcasm") Doc talk 22:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you messing with me or are you having a senior moment? The song was recorded before the event, so how could it be named after Monterey? Will you at least attempt to explain how this is not impossible? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • GabeMc, This situation keeps getting more and more interesting. Now, with the mug shot being used in two articles, an additional NFCC issue is created with NFCC#3 now being violated. It also means that the RfC, if "won", would effectively remove the mug shot from the main article; but not from the new article. Correct? Is this an attempt at some sort of "compromise"? Doc talk 07:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • GabeMc, I can't rightly say it's an unreasonable compromise. It would render the RfC moot, and the image wouldn't be orphaned if it were removed from the article. I'm not the only one on this side of the debate, and I can't speak for anyone else. It's a decent compromise in my opinion (provided that at least the RfC is closed). Doc talk 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doc9871, I agree to close the RfC if you agree to remove the image from this article. How's that? You might have to explain to the other keep !voters, but I think they will understand that the image is now safe from deletion in perpetuity, and that's really the important thing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would agree to do this, but again I do not want to act on behalf of anyone. Maybe if we opened a new section here, to make sure no one objects, outlining the resolution? I would think at least a note at the other two discussions would have to be made, as the image being in an article concerning only the incident and not the main article changes things quite a bit. Doc talk 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe you should request that a neutral admin close this, and the other threads as moot points. If someone wants to challenge its inclusion at Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial they can do so, but at this point I think all the concerns have been resolved: 1) it certainly passes NFCC#8 at the Toronto article, and 2) There is no issue with it not really being justified here. I wouldn't object to DDD, but if you think that we should ask someone else just make a few suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Tell you what: if you withdraw/close the RfC (and you can do that as the filer), I will remove the mug from the article and deal with any potential blowback. It won't be orphaned, and this makes sense to me per the Michael Jackson thing; but NFCC issues will continue to be claimed at the other boards. Meh. Doc talk 23:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, but please don't cry procedural error if something goes wrong, which I seriously doubt that it will. As far as NFCC, with an article dedicated to the incident, I don't see anyone even trying to make a case for deletion, but FTR if someone does file another FFD I will oppose deletion; I think it makes perfect sense at the new article and I think that we should be proud of this compromise. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I mostly agree with GabeMc about this thread. Usually reliable sources sometimes report things that are clearly wrong as easily seen by editors who are well-informed on the topic. The second source uses the qualifier "reputedly", so is weak. Neither is an article about the inspiration and writing of the song. Despite my disagreements with GabeMc, I trust his overall Hendrix expertise, and the actual facts he points out are easy to verify. We don't need to include clearly wrong anecdotes just because they were mentioned in someone else's obituary. We should use editorial judgment and keep this tale out. The indisputable fact that the song was written well before the Monterey Pop Festival and before Hendrix first took LSD makes the story apocryphal, or a legend, but clearly untrue. It does not belong in this article, and any mention should be in Purple Haze instead, in the context of refuting the legend. On the broader point , I think that it is as much of a mistake to over-emphasize Hendrix's drug use as it would be to ignore it. The quote to the effect that he was "not a junkie" seems unnecessary. I don't think that people commonly perceived him as a "junkie" which I interpret as a heroin addict, or at the very least an addict of some sort, so why debunk that claim? There are many things that he was "not" and we don't need to list them all. Instead, we should concentrate on what he was. He had more problems with alcohol than with illicit drugs and it was an overdose of a legal prescription drug that killed him, not illicit drugs. Yes, he loved marijuana and LSD, and that should be mentioned but not over-emphasized because the majority of major rock stars and counterculture figures of the era felt exactly the same way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Canadian drug charges and trial

GabeMc changed some of the content that I added to the article, leaving the following edit summary: "1) nowhere is the provided source is Wilson referred to as a "prosecution witness", 2) only one witness is mentioned, so plural is misleading (imagine that!), 3) his clothing was not described as conspicuous)"

As to 1), The provided source, The Torontoist, states that "In cross examination, however, O’Driscoll began casting doubt about the ownership of the narcotics," O'Driscoll was Hendrix's attorney. Our article on Cross-examination states that "In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent". The opponent of the defense is the prosecution, ergo, the witnesses being cross-examined were prosecution witnesses. I think that describing them as prosecution witnesses is an entirely accurate paraphrase, but I will use "cross-examined" as used by the source to convey the same meaning.

As to 2), the source states, "Mervin Wilson testified about his inspection of Hendrix at the airport, and the singer’s disbelief upon the custom officer’s discovery of substances in his baggage. Constable W.J. Matheson then added that the RCMP’s analysis showed that there were three packets of heroin in the glass jar and trace amounts of hashish on the metal tube." (Emphasis added). Clearly, two witnesses, Wilson and Matheson are mentioned. And in the following paragraph, we are informed that "First, Wilson agreed with the defence lawyer that Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing. Then, Wilson admitted that the flight bag contained none of the paraphernalia usually associated with drug use—spoons, cigarette papers, or pipes. And Matheson confirmed that the police at the airport had found no needle marks on the musician’s arms." Both Wilson and Matheson provided testimony about factors the defense considered exculpatory. The plural is correct and not "misleading".

As to 3), the source reports that "Wilson agreed with the defence lawyer that Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing" (Emphasis added). The word "conspicuous" does appear in the source, describing his clothing.

It seems that all three of GabeMc's assertions in this edit summary are incorrect. Imagine that! Accordingly, I have restored the deleted content, rewording it a bit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • 1) You cannot declare them to be "prosecution witnesses" if the source does not say that; that's classic WP:OR.
  • 2) Yes, two witnesses are mentioned in toto, but you made it sound like more than one witness agreed with O'Driscoll that Hendrix's clothes were mod, which is not at all accurate to the source. You cannot lump every witness in with every claim so that it seems like a larger piece of the trial then it was.
  • 3) The Torontoist used the word conspicuous to describe Hendrix, paraphrasing the Globe and Mail; the original source does not use the word as you had implied; you can't present something that the Torontoist said 40 years after the fact in quotes as if it was something that came-up during the trial and was spoken by a witness. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:00, 7 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimi_Hendrix/Archive_7&oldid=1086318445"