Talk:Barbara Teller Ornelas

Image removed

I removed the painting contained in this version. It was created in a stunning show of effort by the editor who created the page. That said, I think it is a subjective interpretation that only vaguely describes what the subject looks like. Opening a discussion here. --- Possibly ☎ 02:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree. On the one hand, hats off to Shari Garland; I really enjoy the stylization, and it's a staggering amount of good-faith effort. On the other hand, I feel like any heavily stylized interpretation of a subject (especially a living person) displayed on the mainspace should either have been done by the subject themselves, done on behalf of the subjects, and/or just be an already reasonably well-known work outside of Wikipedia. I think this is especially true when using such an image as the infobox thumbnail, and doubly especially true when no caption is used to clarify what the image is (most readers are not clicking on the image to check the Commons description). And finally, I think this is profoundly true when 1) hundreds of photographic images exist of the subject (they just may not have a compatible license for Wikipedia) and/or 2) the subject is still living (and 2.5] is still a public figure), meaning new images with a compatible license are reasonably possible. I love stylized portrait art, but for the purposes of an encyclopedia, an image should have some additive educational value about the subject, whereas I unfortunately think the predominant educational value of the image is "a Wikipedia editor painted a stylized watercolor of this subject for the purpose of enhancing this article". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am a professional artist. Some of my paintings are in museums. I made a quick painting, I believe a good one, for the article because there was no photo. Please add a photo if you find one, or, perhaps you could add an educational caption to my painting. Maybe Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia should establish some criteria for paintings used as portraits. Shari Garland (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue, I think, is that it is a subjective interpretation, rather than it being an accurate and neutral portrayal. TheTechinican27 sums it up well. All I could find vis-a-vis guidelines was MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. --- Possibly ☎ 04:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the public would rather see a representation rather than no representation. Perhaps a rating system would work for images similar to the review system for articles: feature, good, A, B, or C. Images could be upgraded for better ones or moved around within the article. Shari Garland (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I also feel strongly that paintings by editors aren't appropriate. No offence meant to @Shari Garland on this, who went to a lot of very-good-faith effort for a good purpose. But what worries me is that if this were to become a trend, less-able artists will use WP articles as a way to get their work into public notice. Articles will become picture-rails for wannabe painters and illustrators. We'll end up having arguments about the artistic quality of the editors' work, and have to establish minimum standards of how "good" a drawing should be, before it can be used in a WP article (and how is anyone supposed to do that, objectively?). After all, we don't want WP full of very bad or very unrealistic pictures of living people. We'll have to deal with the situation of one artist substituting their work for another's on the grounds that they think it's better (already happens with photos, but it's going to be a lot more emotive with paintings). There are also minor, more soluble issues like copyright issues on paintings made from photos, and what we're supposed to do if the subject of an article objects to the painting saying it misrepresents them (i.e. we can't reference an editor's painting to say that a load of independent sources think it's a reasonable likeness, so in the end we're putting unreferenced subjective material into an article). I'm really sorry about this, because I did rather like Shari Garland's work, but the concept opens a really horrible can of worms. Elemimele (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland: just to reiterate, I think we are all absolutely floored and awed that you went to this effort. And I don't think anyone has objected to the painting on aesthetic grounds. The issue is that it brings something new to the article-- it introduces your artistic interpretation of the subject. And that's not appropriate, more or less, as we do not do original research (see WP:OR). TheTechnician27 and Elemimele have also given some really wonderfully phrased responses above, to the question of whether this is appropriate or not. --- Possibly ☎ 08:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a portrait is in effect original work, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. Use of "realistic" paintings of people who's lives pre-dated photography (example: Henry VIII) is a different issue. This does beg the question as to does a photograph cross the line into art, i.e., original work, if subjected to filters, photoshopped, or any post-camera modification? David notMD (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, Elemimele, David notMD, There will always be quality issues. The same question raised about my painting can also be raised about usual photography. Is this photo the best representation of the topic? Still, the article needs an image. If anyone can find one, please add one. What a huge opportunity for Wikipedia if it allows modern artwork as it does ancient artwork etc. I am not looking to make any money on this painting just like we do not make any money off of any of our writings for Wikipedia. Artists understand when they upload their work to Wikimedia Commons that it is for Wikipedia. Look at journals, magazines, encyclopedias. Why do people enjoy them? They like to read the information and see the colorful pictures. Shari Garland (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• The image at Kim Jong-Un had been a photorealistic sketch for a very long time (before the Trump diplomatic visit IIRC; having a Wikipedian visit North Korea with a camera was not a realistic prospect, but the subject was such a high-profile person that some sort of picture was near-mandatory). There is therefore some "jurisprudence" to use paintings when photographs are not available.

One might argue that SG’s painting is not photorealistic (unlike in the KJU case) and therefore a form of original research. I am not sure about that argument - a photograph is also a form of original research due to lighting, the expression of the subject etc., even if there is less room for creative interpretation.

My long-held position is that the "no copyrighted photograph of a living person" rule is silly (unless part of a larger stance of "no copyrighted pictures at all"). It is supposed to kick someone’s butt into going out and taking the photograph, but does it really work? Here’s a troll suggestion: mandate all BLPs to have a picture, even if it is a drawing by a five-year-old. This way we can blackmail government agencies, PR firms etc. into releasing CC-BY-SA images of their employees/clients if they do not want the top Google search for that person to be a stick figure. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that an article about a living (or dead) person have an image, and not having an image has no effect on the approval process for drafts submitted to articles for creation. David notMD (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Do you think it would be possible to use this image? It's only 200x200, but that would be workable for an infobox thumbnail, and my understanding is that anything published by the US government (in this case, the Department of State) is licensed under the public domain. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyrightwise, I agree that is a yes. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool beans. That also means the (substantially larger) image of one of her pieces on that same page should be in the public domain as well. I'll go ahead and put these on Commons with this rationale so we can add them to the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out TheTechnician27. Here is my representation of Barbara Teller Ornelas for those who might want to know what the source of this topic of conversation was. Shari Garland (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Barbara Teller Ornelas

@TheTechnician27: I very much doubt the image of her work is public domain. Copyrights still reside with the artist after the sale of an artwork, unless a license was explicitly given as part of the sale. --- Possibly ☎ 17:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: The link provided is to Ornelas' official U.S. Department of State personnel page ("art.state.gov/personnel/barbara_ornelas/"). She's a cultural ambassador. The U.S. Department of State is not listed as a covered institution in 17 U.S.C § 105(c). (Edit: I guess 105(c) as a covered institution wouldn't apply anyway because it wouldn't be a type of covered work in the first place, meaning there's no reason for me to believe the image – having been published on an official government website, ostensibly by its own author who works in an official capacity within the State Department – is not in the public domain). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is straightforward as that. The State department obviously does not have her on salary as personnel. They bought a work from her, and I doubt that she released all copyright claims in the process, as most artists don't. I might email the AIE and ask. --- Possibly ☎ 17:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: I don't think you understand that Barbara Teller Ornelas is a cultural ambassador for the U.S. Department of State and that this is, again, her personnel (as in "official employee") page for the Department of State. You say that "the State Department obviously does not have her on salary as personnel", but they objectively have and – if their own website is to be believed – currently do. Ornelas has traveled to other countries on behalf of the United States Department of State ("has traveled internationally as a weaving ambassador for the U.S. Department of State", per the United States Department of the Interior), and again, the website linked to is literally labeled her personnel page ("/personnel/barbara_ornelas/") TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The state department disagrees: "Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted. Only State Department photos are in the public domain." I looked at several artists on their site and many images say "courtesy of the artist", meaning the Dept of State does not own the copyright to the image: they asked permission for it from the artist. That is the case with Ornelas' image: they asked to use the image and Ornelas consented. Ergo, she owns the copyright to it. Whether or not she licensed it public domain in loaning it to them is a question. Anyway, this is off-topic. --- Possibly ☎ 17:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: The final nail in the coffin to me, in conjunction with what's stated above, is that there's nothing on that page indicating any kind of copyright. Now you'd rightfully point out that a lack of an indication of copyright doesn't always guarantee something isn't copyrighted, and I'd agree. However, take what I wrote above, and now factor in that the Department of the Interior – which, unlike the State Department, she does not work for – lists the artwork presented there as "Artwork © Barbara Teller Ornelas." And you might argue: "Well, maybe the Department of the Interior and Art in Embassies have difference standards for how they do this." Except they don't. Take a look at Tony Ryals' official AIE personnel page. The image's description clearly notes that the image is copyrighted ("Courtesy of the artist and Mouth and Foot Painting Artists U.S.A. Image copyright Association Mouth and Foot Painting Artists Worldwide"). Meanwhile, Ornelas' image merely states: "Courtesy of the artist, Navajo Nation, Tucson, Arizona" and has no mention of copyright. In fact, your own link which you provided is the death knell to your argument, right at the very top:

• "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission."

As you noted while I was writing this, this is off-topic, so I'll leave it at that. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that is is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. As you pointed out, the State dept itself gives conflicting information on their copyright page: "everything here is public domain! But wait, some stuff is not!". There are not a lot of clear answers when it comes to copyright licensing. The farm security administration images are an example of clarity. But most times you have to see the actual copyright license within the sale agreement to know what is actually allowed. Yes this is off-topic, last word from me. --- Possibly ☎ 18:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I still have a few questions:

1) Should I, as a professional artist, continue to make watercolor paintings and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for Wikipedia articles?
2) Should my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas be added back to the article Barbara Teller Ornelas?
3) If the answer to question 2) is yes, then who should add my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas back to the article?

Shari Garland (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) I honestly think that this decision is a very major one, and goes beyond this article and this talk-page. I don't know where the correct forum for debate should be (do you, Possibly, David notMD or others?)

There is a copyright issue of a different sort here. Anything written in WP, although freely-usable, must be attributed to an editor, which is what makes me uncomfortable with editor's own-work portraits being used. Because of this rule, the artist can be traced, and WP will become an advertising ground. The fact you are professional (@Shari Garland) doesn't, in my view, change anything. Licence to include work in WP isn't granted by professional status, it's granted by recognition of the work by an independent source. There are two situations that would alleviate my concerns. One would be if editor's artwork could be, in some way, completely anonymous, so the spectre of self-advertisement could be laid to rest. The other would be if the work could be somehow "laundered" through another site that offers neutral, independent reviewing of artwork. Shari Garland, if only you could get your painting published somewhere, granting appropriate copyright, then any of us could put it in!

But this is also an area where I feel Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. We hate conflict-of-interest and material sourced from the subject of an article. But how often must it happen that an actor or actress would be delighted to provide a mugshot with appropriately-worded copyright, to improve the WP article about themselves? And a photo's just a photo; they're not going to provide something that's significantly different to every other publicity pic that a WP reader can find by doing a Google-search. Our articles would be prettier, more informative, and contain information no less verifiable or biased than the press in general, if we let celebs contribute their own mugshots. In my very naive view.

Meanwhile, Shari Garland, if this becomes a debate that gets taken up generally, you could argue that your role is similar to that of the court-room sketch artist: you are providing a mug-shot pic to circumvent a legal restriction. If we go this way, unfortunately I think we should also prioritise pics by absolute realism rather than artistic quality. But the debate really has to be had, properly. Elemimele (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: People uploading photos to Wikimedia Commons for Wikipedia articles is the same difference as people adding photos of their own paintings. Photography is an art category. Why would watercolor need to be anonymous if photography is not? Shari Garland (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland: Regarding your question, Should my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas be added back to the article Barbara Teller Ornelas?, I count about five or so editors above who think that having your watercolour image as part of the article is not a good idea. An appropriate photo has been found, so there is also no need now. Regarding question one (should you continue to paint and upload images of those paintings to Commons), that is entirely allowed by Commons. The real question is whether these watercolour portraits should be included in WP articles, which is a different site than Commons. I do not hear anyone suggesting that is a good idea above. As Elemimele says, it is a larger question. Why don't you try asking at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? That might be the best place.--- Possibly ☎ 21:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: You are referring to an odd number of editors, but I believe our readership should be just as high of a priority. People like pictures. Pictures are an ancient and modern means of communication.

It did seem that you were still undecided on the use of certain other photos that were added to this article. That is why I again brought up the first photo of the watercolor painting that was added to this article.

As I mentioned to Elemimele, watercolor and photography are both types of art so I really don't know why photography should be the only art type that is acceptable for an infobox image. Is there an exact date and time in recent history that disallowed paintings from being a legitimate type of communication? Shari Garland (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland: If you want to establish a that it is OK for article editors to create interpretive portraits for articles, this is not the place to do that. Try the noticeboard I mentioned. But perhaps also take notice that while everyone is appreciative of the intent of your effort to add a painted portrait of your own making to this article, no one has supported that idea so far. In any case, try a larger forum than this talk page. --- Possibly ☎ 03:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: I reiterate, you are forgetting our readers, five random editors are not a sufficient representation of the entire world and universe. You are leaving out the critque of our readers entirely.

This page is an appropriate location for this discussion because a photo of a painting was removed from this article thus initiating this thinktank type brainstorm which has been very interesting. Feel free to continue this discussion wherever you would like. We are already discussing this topic on 3 pages so far. Shari Garland (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland: The question of whether to include the image on this page has been answered. If you want the answer to a larger question of whether painted portraits are OK on any biographical article, this isn't the place; you need a larger forum. Just some basic advice about how Wikipedia works. --- Possibly ☎ 15:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

And, should we ever have that broader forum discussion, my view on the subject would be as follows:

There is no place on Wikipedia for artistic impressions of minor notable people to be included in articles about them, and absolutely none whatsoever if the artist themself is not a notable person on Wikipedia. No matter how well-meaning any artistic impression might be, such an image needs to contribute encyclopaedically to the article, and there are far better social media platforms to share artistic impressions of people where the subject can feel flattered, or where people can use their own imagination to envisage what someone might look like. Of course, were there ever to be a strong, well-cited and direct and valid linkage between the painter and their subject (e.g.John Lennon drawn by Yoko Ono and not John Lennon drawn by me; or perhaps Terry Waite drawn by one of his captors), then that might be a different story and one worthy of further discussion on an individual case-by-case basis. Put simply: there is no place for fanciful paintings of people in Wikipedia articles, and it would be better to have nothing at all. I would also hope that Commons administrators would remove such images were they to be uploaded, per our equivalent of NOTWEBHOST.

That said, I have in recent years been considering uploading (as trustee of her estate) a competent 'life model' drawing by my mother of a nearly nude and supine Quentin Crisp in the mid 1940s. The rationale would be that it would be relevant to this section of his article, and that there is no equivalent image of him as a model already at c:Category:Quentin Crisp, and definitely not that I want to use Wikipedia to showcase her talent. If I did, I would create my own website for that. I do appreciate such matters are rarely 'black and white'. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, The basic portrait that I made was encyclopedic. In one hundred years from now, a basic portrait for biographies will be better than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No, there was nothing encyclopaedic about it, and someone needs to say it. If we were to fill Wikipedia with such child-like representations of people, the Project would become a laughing stock. That is the reality. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I disagree. And so do many of our readers. Shari Garland (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK Nick Moyes (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference problems

As of 19 August 2021, refs 2 & 11 are to her website, 7 is an interview, and 9 is about her sister. Existing refs or new refs should be sought to replace these. David notMD (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Another image, this time of a weaving.

Despite the long discussion above, The Technican27 added what is likely a copyrighted image to the article. There was no consensus to do so, per the above long discussion. I'd be ok with a much lower resolution image. Finally, such works are only public domain if created while under the employment of the State Department. When they buy a work, that does not make it suddenly public domain as copyright resides with the artist. The image itself says "courtesy of the artist", meaning the State dept does not own the image. --- Possibly ☎ 18:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)