I have removed this as BLP violation. He has been convicted of fraud, and to categorise him as "person convicted of fraud" is fine. However, there is not need to put a pejorative label on him that tends to imply a career criminal. There's some discussion on my talk page if anyone is interested, although perhaps we should centralise this somewhere.--Scott Mac22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not restore it again, I believe this to be a BLP violation, so we keep it out until consensus says otherwise. "Fraudster" implies someone who makes a career out of fraud, not someone caught fiddling 11,000 from expenses. But as this applies to multiple articles, I suggest we discuss this in a centralised place. Note, I am not the only person disagreeing with your analysis.--Scott Mac23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
it is a libguistic fallacy to imply all "foo-ers" mean the same. "Murderer" implies only one murder committed (we use mass murderer or serial killer for more). Perjurers have seldom done more than lied in one case, and that's implied. Fraudster, burgler, etc. tend to imply a career made of it. Why use a pejorative label which carries ambiguity, when we can be more accurate. We ought to err on the side of not painting an over-negative picture. (But let's discuss this in one place at the BLPNB.)--Scott Mac23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, O.K., it's not the Wiki that's P.O.V., but the courts then. Hey, hoe; we can't edit the courts, I give up. I'm just added Jim Devine for copleatness and now close my case.--Wipsenade (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The court process will take its course and produce whatever outcome it produces. But unless and until there is a criminal conviction, we should not add the categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an extremely frustrating article. I'll declare an interest straight away as a member, at the time, of Taylor's Cheltenham constituency party. The reason he was most hated by local members is that he was parachuted in from Birmingham and knew precious little, if anything, about the Cheltenham area nor local issues. Taylor's race barely warranted a mention (heck, the previous incumbent was a drug addict of uncertain sexuality and we supported *him* even when his GP got convicted for prescribing him smack; we clearly had quite a liberal tolerance when it came to MPs). We hated Taylor because he was a Brummie, not because he was black. However the media picked up the Cheltenham racist stereotype (Cheltenham is known as a monocultural "white" town) and the media ran with that, totally ignoring local members' primary concern. The problem for Wikipedia is that Wikipedia values verifiability, not truth, and whilst I and other local Tory members can moan about it until we're blue in the face, all the referenceable material calls Cheltenham Conservatives racists for opposing him. If only Wikipedia's restrictions on pejorative libellous terms in BLP also applied to groups! I can't help but be offended at being called a racist by association, especially when that allegation is supported by dodgy media reports. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Andrew, Although not a wiki expert, I believe that emails/memos and letters from official sources (e.g. a local council member) discussing the issue would provide a suitable enough reference. Check out wikiepdia's manual of style for guidance on quotations. You might also consider changing the article to something along the lines of "It was reported at the time that Taylor was disliked in his local constituency because of his colour. These reports were used to sensationalise the election and are largely unsupportable." There are ways of saying almost what you want. All the best Corneredmouse (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Did Taylor do anything notable in his life apart from being convicted of fraud?
There is nothing in this article that provides information on what Taylor has ever contributed to society? Did Taylor do anything notable in his life apart from being convicted of fraud?Barmispain (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The way the article sits at the moment is rather non-NPOV. It pretty much reads as a "look at all the terrible stuff this guy has done" editorial. I'm going to be doing a few edits to try and add a little balance. If anyone can dig up more research please help out.GeneralChan (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Edits on Parliamentarians
Dear people, I have been pouring over pages and pages of Parliamentarians on Wikipedia and have come to realise that most of the articles relating to politicians who have had bad publicity in the past appear to be showing mostly negative information. According to BLP policies, it is our duty to balance the page and present the good and the evil together. Currently, this page seems to show that Taylor was convicted and his life ended there. People have a right to know all of the positive contributions he made to society as well. In the next few days, i will be adding more information to this page which will be of course referenced properly. I will be making the same edits to a few other wiki pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any positive information/links relating to this specific page which can appear neutral and does not violate any BLP policies.
I propose we add a new section on this page, "Contributions to Society". Your thoughts are most welcome. Many thanks. Matty80 (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Personalised statement
The first sentence of the lede says: John David Beckett Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick (born 21 September 1952), is a member of the House of Lords... who strives to promote world peacemaking alongside advocating racial diversity in the higher ranks of business, media, politics, and sports.
This is actually his own answer to an interview question, and should not appear to be an encyclopedic definition of the subject. Valetude (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Regarding the official portrait that is being replaced
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is that the newer image retouched by DbigXray should be used. The major concern for the "Old" image, aside from the quality (which sounds like it could be improved slightly) were the image composition; multiple people expressed a concern about the yellow bar running through his head. The version by SMcCandlish was not preferred as it appeared to be too retouched. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Note the discussion on this topic has been going on for long enough with zero outside participation, so purely to stop the slow-burning edit war I've turned it into an RFC. The original (pre-RFC) discussion is in the section above, RFC-related discussion should go here. Hopefully some uninvolved editors will make their thoughts heard. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I agree with POTW that the revert is poor, because it replaces a good quality photograph with a poorer one (significantly lower resolution, colours bleeding, bad pixellation effect, over brightened and so washed out, presumably because of original bad lighting). The House of Lords portrait is a professional photograph, while the replacement appears an amateur shot with a random and distracting background. With regard to your statement that the original batch upload is "collectively no longer official", how exactly are you defining that? As the original uploader I have no doubt whatsoever that the large number of photographs I uploaded are official, with a verified release, and they remain the best quality photographs we have available of these politicians. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not see how the 2014 photo used on parliament.uk is more "official" than the "official" portraits taken in 2018 which were also published at parliament.uk. The rationale for using the 2018 photograph seems so obvious that persisting with a "but it's official" seems bizarrely illogical. Keep in mind that:
The 2018 photograph is 4 times the size of the 2014 photograph
The 2018 photograph was taken by McAndrew, a professional photographer as part of a Parliament project, while Cohen ("of Princess Cruises") appears to be an amateur photographer with no other context
The 2018 photograph is well composed and shows the subject as they appear in real life this year as opposed to 4 years ago
The 2018 photograph is a magnitude better quality in terms of lighting, true colour and digital quality compared to the 2014 photograph
The 2018 photograph is just as flattering to the subject as the 2014 photograph, not that we should be jumping to make courtesy changes just because someone sends an email in to OTRS. The overriding factor to be considered here is which photograph is more representative of the way the subject appears now as that makes it of higher encyclopaedic value. It is common practice that we update old photographs for more recent ones, especially if they are higher quality
If anything, I suggest you ask whomever has control over the photograph used in the parliament.uk profile page you linked to, to get on and update the photograph they are using as it is out of date. --Fæ (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
New Image - Use the new image. Clearly better. I don't think you can revoke CC licences. If something is released to public domain, it's out there for good. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
New image, but clean it up. This needs color and contrast adjustment. The old image looks weird and plasticky. I've done a quick adjustment, posted here. (If someone can do better, please feel free to just replace my version at Commons.)Adjusted ver. by SMcCandlish — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
New image - Far better compared to the alternatives. Lightening of the image certainly improved quality to appear more "realistic". Meatsgains(talk)00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
New image And DBigXray's version, I uploaded another one just with some minor tweaks that does not make him look unnatural. not SMC's version. IMHO I would have liked something in between Original and SMC. SMC has added too much brightness, it is no longer realistic. --DBigXray21:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted ver. by DBigXray
We have to be careful with rebalancing based on judgement from a professional photo original, especially if the original was taken intended to be printed rather than for a back-lit display. I have two monitors in from of me, Asus and Flatron, the skin tones in the photo appear very different between them. Though on both monitors it seems over-brightened. --Fæ (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I've re-tweaked the photo, after going over Google Image results for Taylor; overall I think that DBigXray and Fæ were right that I'd unintentionally "white-washed" him on the first attempt. You may need to flush browser cache to see the difference. I can't really do much more with this overlit+underexposed original image, though people with more expensive image tools (and skills at using them) might be able to do better). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks SMC, I still feel the edits you have proposed are over the top. I just made few minor tweaks and added my own version now. edited my !vote accordingly. hi Fae, This is just my own opinion, on what I feel would look better in the article. --DBigXray13:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Your version, on my screen, is barely distinguishable from the original. It still looks like the picture was taken in someone's closet, and he still has that weird bluish cast. I recommend opening this Google Images page and comparing the set of images above to all those that are available (but generally not usable by use for copyright reasons). Even mine's still bluer than average. Maybe someone with better graphics skills can split the difference between our versions? (Though work from the original, to preserve total image quality; JPEG is lossy.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It is less blue, but now a bit greenish. It's lacking in red tones (one of the reasons I linked to the Google Images page for comparison), and also lacking in depth/contrast/clarity (which my version apparently went too far on). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Side comment: He really does seem to like that bright blue suit; Google Images pulls up pictures of him wearing it on different occasions (his tie changes color in them). When in a black suit, he's often wearing a blue tie and/or blue shirt, so it seems to be "his thing". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Ronhjones, What does Wiki policy state ? does it allow such request by the subject ? if so then we should close this RFC, If not then his opinion is just another comment on the RFC. --DBigXray22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It was mainly a comment, knowing how some of these things often progress, and the tone of the e-mails. As for policy, nothing set in stone, but I know WP:BLPEDIT says Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. We have had (at least) three tickets on having the image as https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-taylor-of-warwick/1796, and it's my opinion that he wants only that image. Ronhjones (Talk)01:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Ronhjones If so then we should close this RFC and save the community time. Anyway the original image is (though old) but good enough. there is not much changes in his face either. Based on your comment above, I honestly feel this RFC is now pointless. Primefac Now with this news, do you have any concern in withdrawing or closing the RFC ? --DBigXray12:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Re-!vote Use the original, but sharpened, to follow subject preference (not required, but nice) and because in sharpened form it's much better than original and than our attempts to "repair" the washed-out blue suit pic. The problem with the original colourful image is it has a bit of blur and diffusion to it, making it look kind of plasticky except at full size. However, if you look at the official thumbnail [2], it's had a mild edge-sharpening filter applied to compensate, and looks markedly better. This could be done with a copy of the Commons version. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC) @Primefac, Fæ, Jeff G., NickCT, Meatsgains, DBigXray, Ronhjones, and Pigsonthewing: What do previous respondents think? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The original old image File:Lord John Taylor.jpg is frankly good enough. I dont see any real need for sharpening or post processing. Also, there is not much to work with either considering the low resolution pic. Lets just close the RFC due to the Opinion of the Subject who prefers old pic. --DBigXray12:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image release
We have submitted written confirmation from the UK parliament that the image you are using does not have cc 3.0. Wikipedia editors insist on reverting the image due to their own bias on the quality of the subject's desired portrait but this is irrelevant as the UK parliament reps have explicitly confirmed that the image I've reverted to is Taylor's official parliamentary photo and that there are no usage permissions associated with what Wikipedia editors feel is the superior image. Ehy do Wikipedia editors insist on breaking the law in this regard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4E20:3F3:5507:56A6:6045:C4AF (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Creative Commons licenses are non-revokable. Just because the UK Parliament uses a different "official" image does not mean that Wikipedia cannot use a different image on this article. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
There was never a creative commons license to begin with. Please link me to where you discovered the currently used image/where this notion that it was released under CC stems from - It doesn't exist because it wasn't published by UK parliament - Wikipedia editors grabbed it off the file server and assumed it had CC 3.0 because it was taken in the same format as other portraits. I repeat this file is not published elsewhere, has been removed from UK govs website and was NEVER issued under creative commons. So unless you can prove that this file has 3.0 attribution I request that you take it down. We will not drop this matter and will pursue further recourse if necessary. Wikipedia editors are taking copyright law into their own hands and it appears now that they are doing it simply out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:4e20:3f3:202d:d6aa:df6b:3e8f (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe the CC notice was given here. As a note, legal threats are not permitted, so if you're planning on going that route please save us the trouble of blocking you and email legalwikimedia.org. If you leave out the legal threats, though, we're happy to continue the discussion here.
Another option is that if you know the photographer, and know that they have not released this image under the license listed on Commons, you can have the photographer email permissions-commonswikimedia.org asking for it to be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The claims that the image "was not published by UK parliament" [sic] and that we invented the licence is bogus; see [3]. And is this quasi-legal nonsense really made by somebody representing a member of our supreme legislature? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits22:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
old image
new image
Adjusted ver. by DbigXray
Adjusted ver. by SMcCandlish
wikimedia.org. If you leave out the legal threats, though, we're happy to continue the discussion here.
