Jump to content

Talk:Puerto Rico on stamps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abuse of non-free media

[edit]

I can break down rationale for each image, but in a nut shell these images are decorative. One example is File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg the only reference is Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010. That reference fails to provide any critical commentary, and fails several other WP:NFCC points. Until there is more than a passing reference to the image, and justification for inclusion exists these files need to stay out. If you want a review WP:NFCR is where you can go for further review. However you will be told the same thing. Werieth (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be so bold as to adopt you as a mentor. I can supply the narrative you require, just as I have met your first objection that the persons pictured were living. I will not attempt to restore the images until I provide critical commentary equivalent to that of Roberto Clemente.
Importantly, this article is about how Puerto Rico is pictured on stamps of the United States. "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." The reader's understanding of Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans as a part of the United States as pictured on USPS stamps issued before and after 1978 is the point of the article, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be able to provide sourced critical commentary about what was pictured on the stamps, why, and what impact those choices have. That should let you then use 2-4 examples to get the point across if done judiciously. Werieth (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would start off omitting the Puerto Rican flag here. It was a part of the "Flags of our nation" series by the USPS 2008-2010, including five flags of the five current U.S. territories. Four insular territories were commemorated in 1937, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. The new Flags issue pictures flags of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Northern Marianas.
I take it from your comments above that sourced commentary needs to be provided for the Flags as well, which can be provided by State Department Manual references, that each are indeed flags of our (U.S.) nation, territories with U.S. citizenship, fundamental constitutional rights, three-branch self-government, U.S. federal judiciary, etc. Will that be sufficient? Two of the flags are now in use at Territories of the United States on stamps. Rationale provided on the Talk page. Would you remove those images also? I am not trying to sneak anything, I am trying to improve the information provided by the encyclopedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from your comments above that sourced commentary needs to be provided for the Flags as well, which can be provided by State Department Manual references, that each are indeed flags of our (U.S.) nation, territories with U.S. citizenship, fundamental constitutional rights, three-branch self-government, U.S. federal judiciary, etc. Will that be sufficient? Two of the flags are now in use at Territories of the United States on stamps. Would you remove those images also? I am not trying to sneak anything, I am trying to improve the information provided by the encyclopedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critical commentary isn't for establishing what is on the stamp per se, but for establishing the importance of that, the reason those particular works where used, and so forth. Critical commentary is more about either the visual elements and how they where captured, or the meaning behind those works, or if the work had some major impact. Just because some one or something was on a stamp doesnt mean we need to show the stamp, often we can take a free image of that person/place/thing and use that in the article as a reference to serve a similar purpose. In order to justify the usage of non-free media a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself why does this article require the usage of this particular image? Werieth (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on stamps require images of stamps, not photos of the subject. That there is a stamp on the Panama Canal does not mean the article purpose of "Panama Canal on Stamps" is met by a photograph of the Panama Canal. It is met by images of stamps of the Panama Canal. To be comprehensive, that requires the article to feature images since 1978 in the United States with the images being used in a limited fashion for Fair Use, which is explained in the template at the time of the upload.
  • In your referenced guideline it explains, "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." So both those flag images meet the guidelines you refer to, as explained there at Talk. The fair use image identifies the stamp in an article "on stamps", not the subject (the flag and tree) pictured on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However that only applies to the article about that particular stamp, and not about how a particular region is depicted on stamps. You are quoting one small part of a guideline. If you look at the policy as a whole you will see that usage of non-free media is very limited. In this case it cannot be justified. Werieth (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policy as a whole permits fair use of copyrighted stamps. I am quoting the portion of the policy which applies. The intent of the policy is not to make Wikipedia obsolete relative to the USPS stamps from 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite ridiculous. The article is about P.R. on Stamps, and the stamps in question are used to illustrate those stamps, which can not be accomplished with any other images but of those given stamps. All the 'critical commentary' that need be said is that the stamp was issued on such and such a date, to honor such and such a person. Period. Since the USPS clearly says its stamps can be used for educational purposes this should not even be an issue as no one's interests have been compromised, per fair use, and from what I can tell the deleting editor is hounding a good faith contributor for fuzzy and opinionated reasons. TVH, go ahead and restore the images as much as it takes. If this editor tries to delete and hound you again, report the matter to the 3RR noticeboard. This individual is way out of line. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure. The standard to be met for the use of non-free images is quite high is it not? And there was no critical discussion of those stamps in the article before they were removed. This article is a little like a page from a topical stamp collection, but we are an encyclopedia so I suggest that the text in the article needs to be expanded to discuss each of the images in more detail in order to show that the use of non-free images is justified. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was and is about fair use rationale, not about what a given stamp article may look like to certain individuals. Any such concerns along these lines should have been discussed first. If the 'critical discussion' was lacking, it could easily have been remedied. This bull-dozer approach is dong nothing but creating animosity among fellow good faith contributors. Again, the USPS clearly says on its website that their stamps can be used for educational purposes. Since no one's interests have been compromised by using these images, which is really the biggest concern here in terms of getting Wikipedia into trouble, this should not even be an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of USPS licensing appropriately used at Wikipedia? Something that shows critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was. None has been forthcoming to date.

There are stamps after 1978 which show Puerto Rican U.S. citizens to be a part of the United States in politics, baseball, literature and acting. They are honored in great American issues since 1978, and in this contemporary way only since 1978, the governor's palace in 1937 issue does not serve the same purpose. Puerto Ricans voted in referendum to be admitted as a state, and the territorial legislature has applied for statehood. They are Americans.

The flags of the territories are featured in "Flags of our nation", meaning U.S. citizens in territories are honored by Joint Resolution of Congress picturing their flags in precisely the same way as citizens in states are pictured. They are not inferior, their territorial representation in Congress has more privileges attached than the territorial representation of the 19th century for places which subsequently became states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference at the reverts by Werieth read, WP:NFC. Looking at the policy, Acceptable use. "Images. #3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." --- The stamp image is the entire stamp for the philately purpose of showing the commemoration on a stamp, identified with the image of the entire stamp. The purpose is not for the image itself, as a portrait or image of a flag, but rather to document the commemoration of the person or thing relate to Puerto Rico -- is made on a USPS stamp. That commemoration was made by the USPS and it is reported and represented by fair use licensing by them for educational, noncommercial purposes here at Wikipedia.
The context as it now reads is more substantial in this article than that allowed by two administrators as an example for compliance with fair use USPS licensing File:Alice Paul stamp.gif as discussed at WP:Media copyright questions#USPS template. One additional image considered acceptable by one is File:Lady-Bird-Johnson-Forever-Stamps.jpg, which has no commentary or context whatsoever. It is enough that concerning "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt a valid argument. As I have told you the article as it stands has zero critical commentary. Just because a stamp exists doesnt mean we should display an image of it. The file is free but articles and similar discussion where the visual elements of the image are discussed in Inverted Jenny would be sufficient critical commentary. PS the clause you are citing refers to allowing stamps in the article about the stamp, not general topical articles. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. WP:OTHERSTUFF is US postal department Inverted Jenny, it is a free use stamp. We are discussing USPS fair usage, and the Inverted Jenny is not an example of it. It appears you are not familiar with the policy under discussion. The clause refers to permitted fair use of USPS images on Wikipedia. Do you have no example of analysis greater than provided by my sources at the National Postal Museum in the three articles you have disrupted? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with the policy. You requested an example of critical commentary of a stamp, and I provided that. I did note that the example was for a free image. Two other examples where non-free stamps can be justified and have sufficient discussion is Breast cancer research stamp and Statue of Liberty Forever stamp. Werieth (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That is, the kind of critical analysis available at the National Postal Museum as recommended at the Philately project, or the USPS news release at the stamp issue? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It requires third party commentary. Since the National Postal Museum is run by the USPS its not a good independent source. With the case of Statue of Liberty Forever stamp you have newspapers, and news agencies all discussing not only that the stamp exists but the contents of the image. Critical commentary isnt just a description of the work, but can manifest itself in quite a number of methods. Werieth (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical is not only condemning. NPM is given as a reliable source at the Philately project, it is run by Smithsonian Institute. Governmental sources are used widely at Wikipedia. The entire stamp images are used to illustrate a stamp commemoration, not the subject of the stamps. All pictured are dead. Inverted Jenny is free use. Could you give an example on Wikipedia that fits your understanding of fair use USPS? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not US but look at this modern in-copyright stamp: Chinese Golden Monkey stamp. The article discusses how the stamp has become symbolic of a booming market in Chinese stamps, its significance in Chinese culture (red and the number 8), that it has been forged and the prices realised at auction plus technical details. It's just my opinion but I think this is what is meant by a critical discussion of a copyright image. This would probably not have been a valid fair use image if all the article had mentioned was the subject matter and some technical details. Note also that the stamp image was reduced to a tiny thumbnail! Philafrenzy (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy is spot on about what critical commentary. If we are just discussing that a stamp exists why are we required to display an image of it? why cant we just use a text discription? or why cant we link to the USPS site where the reader can learn more and see the image there? Werieth (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are following WP:NFCI. "Images.3. Acceptable use. The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. .. Images. Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content...3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ive reverted your edit, that rule applies to usage of the stamp on the article about the stamp. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained with citations, you are mistaken, the citations you purport to use do not support your point, the acceptable use is for every stamp image for every article, not only those articles you are interested in contributing to. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not listening, I have said that it may be possible to include a limited number of non-free stamps if the needed critical commentary can be found and added to the article. That burden falls on those wanting to include the media. Take File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg other than a basic discription of the article from a primary source there is zero critical commentary. If you could provide sourced discussion about the impact, visual notability, or other key factors that would justify the inclusion of the stamp we can make progress on moving on. However bare facts that X is a stamp of X and Z are lightyears from meeting the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC and more specifically WP:NFCC#8. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one obvious element would be to relate the Columbus landing at Puerto Rico 500th anniversary U.S. commemorative stamp to the 400th anniversary Spanish commemorative stamp. Which I would get to were I not trying to preserve the orphan files from being deleted. At some level you are penalizing me for being on the wrong side of the "digital divide", I am slower at this than you are. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dont take this the wrong way, but let the files be deleted. Restoring a file is trivial once we have enough justification for inclusion. If you can provide that Ill even talk to a few admins I know and have the needed file(s) restored. But until there is justification for the files we cannot include them. Werieth (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VH, I think I have said this somewhere else before but do the text first with a discussion of why the stamp is important (some are just not) and then you have ample reason for including a fair use copyright image. If there is nothing to say about a stamp beyond the fact that it exists then it is unlikely to meet the criteria for justifying a copyright image. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that you may be thinking of the writing for a different article than this one. Examples of "critical" commentary seem to be limited to whats wrong with a stamp, upside-down or violating some copyright.
The stamps are all important to this topic, as they are related to Puerto Rico, the topic. So here the stamps are to be included for each field of endeavor for each notable Puerto Rican. How is that positive purpose not conveyed already -- with the commentary? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also cited Breast cancer research stamp and other examples have been given, yes the stamps with errors are the easiest to justify, but again what do you think critical commentary is? There isnt any in this article. Werieth (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breast cancer research stamp is like a biography article about someone in the topic article American Civil War. It has more detail than the summary topic can support.
Critical commentary is a critique of the stamp and its place in Puerto Rico on stamps. We have for comparison File:Alice Paul stamp.gif use in an article on multiple stamps with "78c Alice Paul" as the total sum of the critical commentary for that stamp, far less than any I have written. By the way, I do appreciate your suggestion to link USPS or Arago online image in the absence of the entire stamp image. One of the reasons I want to keep talking at you, for my better understanding of what is attainable.
What do you imagine there is to say if international law says Puerto Ricans are legally U.S. citizens, a part of the United States and celebrated on USPS postage stamps? The famous American series includes a Puerto Rican, the Baseball greats series includes a Puerto Rican, the American literature series includes a Puerto Rican and the actors series includes a Puerto Rican actor -- these are not free images to meet NFCC #1. The use of the entire series of each issue is limited to those related to the topic of Puerto Rico which meets NFCC #3. Sources include National Postal Museum and USPS sources, governmental sources are widely used and accepted throughout Wikipedia to meet NFCC #8.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VH: "critical" does not mean criticism because the stamp is printed upside down or something like that, it means discussing the wider significance of the image in an evaluative way. For a stamp it might be that there was a political controversy about whether the subject was suitable to feature on a stamp, or in a purely philatelic context it could be that it represented a new way of printing and saying why that was important. It's more than just saying something exists and who is pictured on it. This is an encyclopedia not a selection of random facts. Why does what you are writing about matter? It seems to me that 1) you are treating articles here much like pages in a stamp album, this is not a stamp album it is an encyclopedia, and 2) a lot of the stamps that you are adding are not at all important or interesting and that is one of the reasons that you are finding it difficult to say anything about them. It wouldn't be such a problem if you were using only out of copyright images because, frankly, nobody would care very much, but if you use copyrighted images then you have to raise your game in order to justify the use of the images, or don't use them at all or just use text with no image. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point #1 makes sense. "2) a lot of the stamps that you are adding are not at all important or interesting" just means you are not interested in the topical article. That is not grounds for excluding a fair use USPS image found anywhere. There is no example which would justify restricting stamps about any subject such as Puerto Rico on stamps from USPS fair use licensing, while there are examples of appropriate USPS fair use using less commentary in multi-stamp articles. My take-away is your point "it means discussing the wider significance of the image in an evaluative way." which I will continue to do, then resubmit. --- My personal scoring for this hobby to to make more article contributions than Talk contributions. More on Talk pages later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean I am not interested, it means that you haven't explained why I or anyone else should be interested. If you do that you have a more encyclopedic article and a better argument to use copyright images. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability does not come from me or you, it comes from a Joint Resolution of Congress honoring Puerto Ricans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Rico_on_stamps&oldid=1209900820"