Talk:Mark Rainsford

Images and dates. Attempt to gain consensus

(Substantively moved from user talkpage, as no response there). I have some concerns about recent changes to the article:

1. Date of birth. The subject's year of birth was changed from 1660 to 1650. No explanation or reference was provided. Every other reference I can find gives his date of birth as 1660. I have tagged the change as needing a cite. If none is provided I will remove/revert.
2. Statue. As per the "failed verification" note added, there is no cite confirming Rainsford's involvement in the unveiling of the King William statue. The cite provided only states that the statue was unveiled WHILE he was mayor. This is a very tenuous link. And certainly not strong enough to warrant putting 5 or 6 images of the statue on the page. (The statue is not of Rainsford. Was not sculpted by Rainsford. Was not commissioned by him or started under his tenure as mayor. And, even if he was at the unveiling, it's so tenuous a link as to not warrant image inclusion). Unless there is some justification that I am missing, my read of the guidelines on images and galleries would not warrant the image inclusion. (Or, for that matter, the text inclusion).
3. Infobox image. Per my read of the relevant guidelines, heavily edited images are to be avoided. So long as it's appropriate, it would seem to be better to have the original image. Unless there is justification for having the heavily edited image, save for cropping, I don't understand the rationale for using an image of lower resolution, with unreadable text (in thumbnail or expanded version), and an artificially darkened background.

Would be good to get have some discourse/consensus on these points before further edits are made. Guliolopez (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Image "airbrushing"

Following-on from my earlier note above, the infobox image was since further "airbrushed". I have reverted to the original contemporary portrait per WP:LEADIMAGE guidelines (and as noted to editor here). In the spirit of CON, other considerations are more than welcome, but I do not see how an "airbrushed" image (which gives the subject the appearance of having blue/grey eyes (true?), fuller black hair (true?), etc) is appropriate to a Wikipedia article. At best it's in the realm of fashion-mag airbrushing. At worst reminiscent of a photoshop fabrication. Neither would seem appropriate to the WP image/leadimage guidelines. Even assuming the original artist took licence (to selectively omit "warts and all"), the unadulterated contemporary portrait would seem to be preferred over a modern revisionist creation. Guliolopez (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Original founder

The text claims that "Rainsford is most noted as the original founder of the Guinness Brewery in St. James's Gate". He was not, and whoever wrote this has misinterpreted the source. The brewery at St James's Gate was almost certainly founded by Rainsford's father-in-law, Giles Mee. Zythophile (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The source gives that the "The premises in James's Gate were owned [..] by Alderman Giles Mee [..] James's Gate passed to his son-in-law, Alderman Sir Mark Rainsford". The word "original" (or equivalent) is not given or implied. Neither is the term "founder" (or similar). Guliolopez (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)