Talk:Larry Vickers

Removed image

I have removed Larry-Vickers-6.jpg because the justification given for its use was the general created by the military one but the post-production blur means that this use doesn't apply unless the blurring was done by the military (unlikely). This means that we need permission from whoever modified the image. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly is that in the image use policy? I can't find it.2600:6C54:7E00:C2:99AE:63BC:8C10:EDD2 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If its been modified its not the same image, whoever modified it would have to release it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, but can you please link the exact area of the image use policy that states that? 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:99AE:63BC:8C10:EDD2 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It has to be a straight reproduction or scan, we say "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights" and what you are presenting here is not a scan, its an original work of whoever did the blurring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you're right. The Wikipedia:Public Domain page states: "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies."

I don't think modifying an image by blurring out a few faces meets minimum creativity copyright rules as stated in the image use policy page. Therefore we are not required to seek the permission of whoever modified it which is probably either Larry Vickers himself or Panteao Productions. This image was also used in a youtube video called "Profiles of Courage: Larry Vickers." 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:99AE:63BC:8C10:EDD2 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the original use of the work by whoever did the blurring falls under public domain use... But the resulting image does not, as you yourself argue the owner of the image is probably either Larry Vickers himself or Panteao Productions. We can of course use the original public domain image if it can be found, there really isn't an editorial reason to blur the other faces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason to blur the other faces is that they are possibly still in Government service or they just don't wish to be identified. In which case blurring of faces is allowed under the "Alternatives" section of the image use policy. However, I still do not agree with you and neither do any of the policies or guidelines that I have read. This has been a waste of our time over nothing and I suggest we either just end this argument right now and leave the image removed from the page or get an admin involved and they can determine if the image belongs or if it should be selected for deletion. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:F163:DF6E:483E:FE1A (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how admins on wikipedia work, on content issues their say is the same as any other editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing at the given source-pages for these images [1][2] that indicates they are PD, the site says Copyright© Panteao Productions LLC, All Rights Reserved. Where does the PD claim come from? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I just read a part of that site's site policies/terms of use and they make it clear that these 2 images are copyrighted and can't be used elsewhere. The other image should be removed from the page and they both should be selected for deletion. However, whether or not horse eye's claim is true or not is a different matter. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Either they're PD or I'm right. Pick one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither. These images are not PD and as I stated above there is nothing in WP's policies and guidelines to support your claim. Had you stated what Gråbergs stated above, I would have agreed with you. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So when does the work turn from PD to copyrighted by panteao? It wouldn't be when the work was modified, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It never did turn. Panteao only released the blurred image. The pages Image use policy, Threshold of Originality, Commons:Threshold of originality do not support your claim of images modified with blurring have a new copyright. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well good luck, every single one you add will eventually be removed... Whether you understand why or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask if you are even reading the pages I mentioned because you are replying pretty fast. The only thing I have found that might support your claim is the database rights page, however it states that no database rights exist in the United States.2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Competence is required, if you lack the competence to identify copyrighted work then you can't be editing wikipedia. Have a nice day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated both for deletion on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion, however since being listed there a third editor has commented, meaning a third opinion is no longer needed; 3O is intended for discussions between only two editors. A relevant filing at DRN has been closed. In line with the closing comment at DRN, I would suggest letting the relevant image deletion discussions take place before moving forward. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Unreliable sources" article tag, removal of

This article has a "some of this article's listed sources may not be unreliable" tag from Jul 2021. Looking through the sources list, it's not immediately clear which sources are being referred to (else I would attempt to improve the situation). Using inline "unreliable source?" or "better source needed" needed tags would be infinitely more useful, for readers and for editing.

If you can identify poor sources via inline tags, please do so! I will also attempt to, and then remove the article tag. Thanks. –Tsavage (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Terminology Correction

"Floppies" is a description of how a shot person collapses, and is not racial in nature. I realize this is hard for liberals to comprehend, but not everything is race-related. 2/3 of the Rhodesian Army were black, and were not "Floppies." The communists they shot flopped down dead when slotted, and some of them were Cuban advisors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.41.181 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 

For one, the NYT is a better source than you are. Not to mention states, groups, and movements tend to whitewash themselves, the confederates did it, the nazis did it, the rhodesians did it. Ask a confederate if the n word is racist or offensive, of course they're gonna say no. Also 2/3 of the rhodesian army being black does not preclude it being a white minority rule state. Wozrop (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)