Talk:Rick Perry veto controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

How's this for context: copyright

MrX thinks context is important. Fine. How about we see from whomever uploaded the mugshot a copyright waiver or some kind of permission from Travis County, Texas or some kind of permission from the State of Texas--until that information is provided then it just best to take it down. Whoever uploaded it is putting Wikipedia at risk.--NK (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Context? I got context for ya! Take a gander at these apples: Wikipedia:Image use policy.--NK (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, when we get permission from Travis county, you would be OK wit the mugshot? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly positive that this image would fall under fair use anyway. WP:NFCC 1) It's not reproducable, 2) It's low enough quality not to detract from the original, 3) Only used on this article, 4) Previous published by Travis County and other media sites, 5) This topic is encyclopedic, 6) Meets image use policy, 7) Used on at least 1 article, 8) Significant i the context of his indictment, 9) In article space, 10) Has yet to be done - Cwobeel? @TLSuda: You're an expert on NFCC, what do you think? (Disclaimer, I nom'd TLSuda for RfA).--v/r - TP 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it may not survive at Commons, without an OTRS from Travis County, but may survive here under fair use. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. If there is no paperwork for Wikipedia then there is no paperwork. There aren't different rules for Wikipedia and Wikimedia, they are both owned by Wikipedia Foundation.--NK (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm, yes there is. Wikimedia Commons only hosts free content. Wikipedia has a Non-free content criteria and can host non-free content. If there was no difference in policy, then why would English Wikipedia even need its own ability to upload files separate from Commons?--v/r - TP 22:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really believe that Cwobeel has met all of the requirements of that policy? If yes then please have him provide the documentation for the NFCC, ok?--NK (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already asked him to above. See "10) Has yet to be done - Cwobeel?"--v/r - TP 22:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the unlikely event that this image is not public domain, and the file is deleted from Commons, it can be uploaded here under fair use, with margin to spare. In fact, that could be done now and the image could be restored to the article.- MrX 22:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And to answer your question, TP, which is not relevant, each of those organizations have different goals, different policies, etc. Just because they are both owned by the Wikipedia Foundation does not mean the same day to day operations applies, the operations is guided by the each organizations goals and policies.--NK (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong. Wikimedia Commons is responsible for hosting free content. Wikipedia does not host free content - any that gets uploaded is moved automagically by a bot. We have clear and defined goals for both project and Commons' goal is to provide for the common media needs of all languages by being a central repository for free content.--v/r - TP 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I will upload at WP under fair use. Later today. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Y Done - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mugshot violates BLP and copyright law

No mugshots are allowed because they violate BLP and this particular does not seem to have a copyright attached.--NK (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP says, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)." An article about criminal charges against a person is the proper context.--v/r - TP 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• The mugshot photo seems perfectly appropriate given the subject of this article. It's not as if he's bothered by it. Also, it seems to be in the public domain.- MrX 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not only that, but there has been quite a bit of media about the mugshot itself. From the t-shirts, to his smirk, to his tie, to his lack of glasses, the ice cream afterwards, and even the twitter reactions about it. We could have a whole section on his mugshot. Unfortunately, without this article growing, it might be a bit undue. But it is all there in the sources. Adds a bit of humor and lightness to an otherwise very serious article.--v/r - TP 19:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Regardless, the mug shot should not be used per WP:MUG. Should we add the Mugshot of Rosemary Lehmberg? Her mugshot is equally, if not more, important for the context of this article. It would be hard to defend the inclusion of one and not the other. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • In an Arrest of Rosemary Lehmberg article, yes. In her biography, no. This article is about his indictment - it is appropriate in context per the policy above. What you are saying is directly opposed to the actual WP:BLP policy. WP:MUG is a subsection of WP:BLP and I've quoted it above. You can either click on MUG and actually read it, or you can read the quote above.--v/r - TP 20:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) You referenced the same policy that TParis did, which says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." What better image would you use to illustrate this subject? To answer your question, yes, if we had an article called Rosemary Lehmberg's DUI conviction, then a mug shot would be appropriate. - MrX 20:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Who said anything about her Bio? I am saying in this article. It is relevant here. Regardless, Perry's mugshot should not be used for the person infobox. Arzel (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Perhaps. I'm planning to write a section about the mugshot itself - would you prefer it in that section and to use the same photo as his bio? I don't necessarily agree, but I'm willing to compromise to move past this.--v/r - TP 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the infobox is not a person infobox, it's a generic infobox. In that case, the photo serves as the lede image. Is there another image that is more representative of the indictment that we should be using? I'm really don't understand the objection to using the mug shot.- MrX 17:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It has all of the apperances of your standard infobox. The argument for use of the mugshot has been that it has some historical value, that does not appear how it is being used here. We all know that the whole purpose of the mugshot was for political purposes. Perry is apparently trying to also use it for his own political purposes. Not sure why you think that WP should play that game as well. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Arzel - I've got a cold tonight and I'm not feeling well. I am going to write a solid paragraph about the mug shot - there has been wide coverage of the mug shot specifically - not just that he took one but about how it looks. I will have something ready NLT Saturday. If you like, we can move the picture down to that section then.--v/r - TP 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No write up on the pending writ of habeas corpus petition?

Can we get on this? Afronig (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed the non-free mugshot image until there has been a determination that the image is truly legally usable under fair use

I removed the mugshot image until image has valid reason provided on the image's talk page, explaining why this non-free image cannot be simply replaced with a free image of Rick Perry from his main article. It just seems that according to the fair use exemption to the copyright laws there must be compelling need to use the mugshot for Perry, instead of a free image, which Wikipedia already has in stock. There is a picture of Wikipedia has already acquired properly. The requirements of the fair use exception are not met.--NK (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Says who? There is no reason to remove the image. As explained above it fits smack into fair use doctrine. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What is general policy on this? This may violate WP:BLP. Afronig (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How? Please point to the exact text in the policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Restored image. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't come close to violating any policies.- MrX 17:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Read WP:BLPCRIME on the guidance of mugshots. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Afronig (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion on a civilized level. I don't see anything in BLPCRIME that mentions mugshots. Here is the full text:

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

- MrX 18:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't call what I'm saying nonsense (or tag team to that effect) and I won't call what you're saying bullshit. Afronig (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed not a tabloid, and we have great policies to guide us. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR which contains very useful information about how to source materials and how not to conduct original research. And please keep it civil if you can. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The policy is not WP:BLPCRIME, it is WP:MUG and it says this:

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed.

There is a general consensus minus Arzel and NK that the image is being used in appropriate context. Arzel has asked that the booking photo be moved down to the "mugshot" section and I think we can accommodate that just fine and use another photo of Rick Perry for the infobox. However, mugshots are not disallowed as a rule.--v/r - TP 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I planned to do it after I expanded on the mugshot section. There is quite a bit more media out there about it - I just haven't felt up to it.--v/r - TP 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC source.--v/r - TP 22:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(wow) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have moved the mugshot image to the mugshot section. I think it is best to leave any portrait photo out of the main infobox so readers don't think this article is a biography.- MrX 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to present only one point of view.

Based on some of the cited sources, it appears that this article's stance is slanted toward the case "that the charges [are] political and partisan". Specifically citations number 7 (Nolan Hicks (April 24, 2014). "Perry aides offered Lehmberg a job for resignation". MySanAntonio. Retrieved August 21, 2014) and number 8 (Laurel Brubaker Calkins (August 21, 2014). "Perry lawyers dispute links between charges, ethics probe". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 22, 2014), contain statements by the special prosecutor confirming that the decision to indict had merit. Source number 11 (Root, Jay. "Five Things to Know About Perry Indictment". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 21 August 2014.) also contains a description of why the indictment may have merit.

On another matter, citation 7 is cited for the statement "Perry was never a target of the probe according to an affidavit by the investigator on the case.", yet the source does not refer to this.

I have not reviewed the other citations. eiwacat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiwacat (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So fix it... - Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since "the charges are partisan" are the viewpoint widely reported, even by very liberal sources, that is appropriate WP:WEIGHT to that viewpoint in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC, New York Times, and LA Times have all come out widely opposed to the indictment and calling them political. The mainstream viewpoint from all angles is that it was partisan. Balance is not achieved by making an article reflect minor viewpoints as if they are equal to the mainstream view.--v/r - TP 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

While political/legal commentary (even by respected attorneys like Alan Dershowitz) do not carry weight within the legal system, they give the reader context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a reputable attorney (i.e not Rachel Maddow) outside of the parties involved has defended the merits of this indictment. I think the comparison of this legal matter to a scientific matter is interesting. If a scientific theory is not conclusively refuted officially, but most scientists refute it, that's the weight we go by. Afronig (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Staying close to the sources

@Afronig: - I appreciate your efforts, but we have to stay close to the sources. The source says "surrendered" and that is what we have to use. We can't make up stuff, just because we "know" the source is wrong. We have to stay close to the sources, per WP:V. Ditto about your addition about a habeas corpus. Find a source for that and you can keep the edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The KERA (public television) source says arrived. Just because one source uses a loaded word does not mean Wikipedia has to, especially since in this case the word "surrender" implies arrest to the general reader, and thus WP:BLP issues arise. While arrest has different legal meanings, Rick Perry was not custodially arrested. The Writ petition is cited already. There is a paragraph blurb, and a Google search will give much more information. I did create another section in talk about expounding on this earlier. Afronig (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop using Twinkle. That does not assume good faith. Afronig (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Arrived" as if just went to see a movie? He did not "arrive", he presented himself to authorities as any other person in this country that gets indicted. Do we need to make some accommodations because he is a Governor? Absolutely not. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Our sources say: "Surrendered" and "turned himself in" - Please see WP:V - Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Afronig: Stop telling people to stop using Twinkle. Your assertion has no basis in policies or guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is a rollback tool and Wikipedia policy absolutely says it's not to be misused. If this continues, I will escalate this matter to a review of editorial misconduct pursuant to Wikipedia's arbitration procedure. Afronig (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Afronig: Please give a diff to back up your misuse claim. If you can't do this, expect your edict to be ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Rollback, not my edict. While this is now a moot point, if you intentionally disrupt Wikipedia now by rolling back edits through Twinkle or any other mode, I will escalate that intentional misuse through the dispute resolution process. Afronig (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Afronig: Might want to read what you're linking to more closely: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In :re Perry surrendering vs. arriving, there is a difference in what sources as to this verbiage. From a BLP perspective, the article cannot imply that Perry was arrested, because he was not. That's my main point there. Afronig (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong here. Apologies. Did not see this:

The patrolling tool Twinkle adds links in similar places to the "rollback" links, and also calls them "rollback". Anyone using both will see both types of "rollback" link, which can be a little confusing. Unlike rollback, Twinkle may be used by any autoconfirmed user. Other than this, the links are functionally the same, but differ in their choice of edit summaries. Twinkle also offers additional options.

As a fairly new editor, my belief is policy needs to change. I saw no difference between Rollback and Twinkle, but that's beyond the scope of us here. Afronig (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are indicted, you don't "arrive" at county jail. You are compelled by law to surrender yourself to authorities so that you can be booked. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the citation for this assertion, preferably from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure or a secondary source? KERA uses the word arrive, the other source uses the word surrender. Both mean the same thing, in this regard. Perry was not arrested, but still had to appear for booking, and in regards to WP:BLP, an arrest cannot be alleged. Afronig (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)