Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SBKRI

SBKRI

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 10:16:11 (UTC)

SBKRI

SBKRI from 1973; obverse shows the card-holder, her finger print, and signature
SBKRI from 1973; reverse shows the card-holder's biodata as well as the card's legal basis and validity period

Reason: High quality scans of an early example of this (now discontinued) form of Indonesian identity card. The law was passed in 1971; this card dates to 1973. The Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia (SBKRI) was ostensibly required for all Indonesians of foreign descent, but in practice only enforced for ethnic Chinese. Without such a card, Chinese Indonesians would have difficulty making passports, ID cards, registering births, or otherwise dealing with the government. A law invalidating its use was passed in 1996 and reaffirmed in 1999, but in 2008 Kompas was still reporting Indonesian citizens of Chinese descent being asked for it.
Articles in which this image appears: Proof of Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; obverse is used in another article
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: Ministry of Domestic Affairs of Indonesia; scanned and digitally de-gunked by — Chris Woodrich (talk)

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about the "Personality rights"? Is the person still alive? There isn't a PR template on the image page... --Janke | Talk 11:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure Commons:Personality rights applies. It differentiates between "privacy" and "personality" rights. Our own article on personality rights explains "personality rights [are] the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity". There is little, if any, commercial use for a 40-year-old, expired, discontinued document. Furthermore, Commons' personality rights page says "consent is not needed for use within Wikimedia if that use adheres to policies". I can add the tag if requested, but we haven't generally demanded it of our featured portraits (especially historical or incidental ones) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Why? Sca (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The same reason we've feature currency, historical documents, and sheet music: although aesthetic elements may be lacking, they are "highly informative" and "help readers to understand an article". An illustration of an actual SBKRI, especially an early one, has high EV. Even those books I have that deal with the subject don't illustrate it; we've done better than them. That this document was preserved well is a bonus. For the nth time: "featured picture" =/= "pretty picture". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I gather correctly, the person was born in 1933, so there is a good chance of her being alive. For that reason I wouldn't feature this - would you want your old ID on the main page?--Janke | Talk 09:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it were expired and in good condition, I'd be fine with it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I would consider the upload of any of my expired IDs to be an abhorrent invasion of privacy. - hahnchen
- And where would you draw the line, exactly? If you'd been in the grave for 10 years, would it still be an "invasion of privacy"? What about 40 years? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I see no photo of Wongso on that one... and besides, I never voted on that particular FPC! ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I trust that the National Archive of the Netherlands have done their due diligence. I don't think you have. - hahnch e n 09:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Strongly agree with Janke and Hahnchen, above. There are significant WP:BLP issues to consider here. — Cirt (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the others. --Tremonist (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'm gonna join the chorus – but mainly cuz I don't see the visual interest – or EV, for that matter. (As an aside, it was an old saying in the news biz that "you can't libel the dead." It would seem that you can't invade their privacy either.) Sca (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]