This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Bringing this up, because it will eventually be brought up anyway. Currently we do not have a real-life photograph or image of her because there is no free-license image available, and we cannot use a copyrighted image. Per WP:NFCC, we cannot use a non-free image of her under fair use, as she is a living person who is not incarcerated, and therefore a free-license image can be made in future. Hence, taking a still shot from a video isn't really suitable from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. Furthermore, given her sudden popularity and following, I don't think it will be long until she's covered by the Russian government in a promo piece, and all images released by the Kremlin are released under a free-license (e.g. File:Vladimir Putin 4 August 2001-2.jpg, File:1st BRIC summit leaders.jpg, File:2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade-13.jpeg, File:Alexander Lukashenko 2007 cropped.jpg). -- benlisquare T• C• E 02:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus: I've added File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg to the article infobox. Instead of choosing a still where she's smiling (as you've suggested above), I've decided to choose one where she maintains a decent amount of eye contact towards the camera (so she's not looking away), I hope you find it satisfactory. If the fair-use rationale needs tweaking, feel free to modify it as you see fit. -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Benlisquare:, @ Piotrus:, @ Starship.paint: The file (again) has been tagged for deletion per CSD F7. Regards, — dain omite 04:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus, Starship.paint, and Dainomite: Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg. -- benlisquare T• C• E 05:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As an example: Imagine if Barack Obama held a press conference at the Oval Office, and an Associated Press photographer took a picture and published it. An artist can draw Barack Obama at a podium at the Oval Office without the artwork having anything to do with the AP photographer's photograph. You cannot state that an artwork is a derivative work of a commercial image simply because it appears similar to it. If multiple people take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and one of them happened to do so on behalf of a commercial entity, does that mean that everyone's Eiffel Tower photographs are derivative works of the commercial entity? No, of course not. The creator of the video is the copyright holder of the video, and not the copyright holder of the press conference. -- benlisquare T• C• E 05:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Look, Masem, I normally support you in many instances of NFCC, for instance the Kim Jong-un article, however I believe that in this case you are going too far in your assumptions of non-free copyright, and I absolutely must disagree with you here. If you believe that File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg does not meet the non-free criteria, and such a view is supported by community discussion, then I will not oppose to its removal. However I do believe that your claims of derivative work for the artworks, both here and at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Natalia Poklonskaya, are unfounded and unnecessary, and threaten the good will of free-license content. I believe that this is becoming silly copyright paranoia. -- benlisquare T• C• E 05:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As an example of what would be undeniably and irrefutably considered a derivative work, this image would be considered a derivative work (pencil sketch based on video footage). This image (warning, NSFW) would be as well (painted artwork based on photographic and video footage), as is this image (a derivative of this meme), and this image (derivative artstyle of the Love Live! television anime series).
I believe that this sort of paranoia hurts free content as a whole. If people are going to have their artworks unfairly labelled as "derivative works", then why would there be any further incentive for people to release works under a Creative Commons license? These artists granted OTRS permission to use such a license based on their good faith and desire to share, only to be shut down as derivatives with unsubstantial evidence. -- benlisquare T• C• E 14:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's another question: Two people simultaneously take a photograph of a deer with special patterns, never to be seen before. Someone else looks at both photographs, and makes an interpretive cubism painting with some form of limited resemblance. Who owns the copyrights? Photographer A, photographer B, or the cubism artist? I keep repeating time and time again, but you keep ignoring it or brushing it aside: ANK was not the only agency there at the conference, and was not the only agency which created visual imagery at that conference. How can you honestly state that, without a doubt, an image is derived from the ANK imagery, and not from somewhere else?
You keep saying that "the few but essential creative elements of the footage, such as lighting and angle" are copyrightable by ANK's video (this is a direct quote from you). Why, then, do you keep ignoring my point that all of these images have differing lighting and angling to the ANK imagery? ASLE owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, Evan Yang owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, and BonKiru owns the copyright to his angles and lighting. What is with this silly double standard that only ANK's angles and lighting matter, and not the angles and lighting of everybody else? Have you not realised the holes within your reasoning? You can't have your balalaika and play it too. -- benlisquare T• C• E 15:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I will now provide a summary as to why the aforementioned artworks cannot be absolutely, concretely and firmly labelled as derivative work of the video footage by Argumenty Nedeli-Krym, so that without a doubt there is evidence to prove that there was not enough threshold of originality and unique work to justify enough originality for these artworks.
Long-winded and verbose explanations
|
---|
|
I hope my verbosity has not been displeasurable. I am very certain that the claim that these images qualify under the label of "derivative work" is preposterous. -- benlisquare T• C• E 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The image has now been deleted: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_50#File:Natalia_Poklonskaya_conference_screenshot_crop.jpg. With a split between support and oppose I believe we should draft a good argument for restoring it and post it at WP:REFUND. Admin's closing statement can be used - it seems to grasp many (through I think not all) of our points for usage. (We could also try to contact the station, and the subject, to ask for a freely licensed image, even if they don't reply it will be another argument for the use of this one, showing the difficulty in obtaining the replacement).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Mainly it over emphasizes pictures of her as cute Japanese ( Kawaii) cartoon images and lacks an image of what she looks like in reality, inappropriate for a serious article on a living person. Also some of the citations are to unreliable sources, like an opinion piece in Bloomberg News and to a youtube video in Russian untranslated.
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ( editorials) or outside authors ( op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
Parabolooidal ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Senior Counsellor of Justice" refers to her rank, "Prosecutor" refers to her occupational position. Rank and position are not the same thing, so please don't get them confused. A tank commander can also be a sergeant, but a sergeant is not necessarily a tank commander.
You mention that there are no images of her real life appearance, however this is definitely beyond our control: There have been numerous discussions regarding a non-free fair use image of her in real life, and such an image that was previously uploaded has since been deleted. It's an unfortunate case that there is no free-license photographic imagery of her available, however this is a sad truth that we can't really solve at this stage. Artists who draw cartoons of her are more willing to release their works under free licenses than media photographers working for Russian agencies (apparently on the Russian Wikipedia, people have attempted to contact various media agencies, but these attempts have yet to bear any results), most likely because these photographers rely on such photographs to make money. Good faith donations are more likely to occur when people are creating works voluntarily, as opposed to it being part of their daily employment, and I don't blame them for that. -- benlisquare T• C• E 12:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Parabolooidal: Would you like to constructively help with improving the referencing of this article? Because I'd prefer it if you would co-operate, there's no other way to improve sourcing if you don't. Surely you would prefer to see the article improved so that it doesn't contain problems? If we keep the talk to sourcing and souring only for now, we might be able to actually solve this problem.
I have removed all BloombergView citations from the biography section, however I have kept them within the internet section, and removed their tags. The BloombergView cite is an editorial piece, and therefore should not be used to cite biographical information, however this article isn't purely biographical, and such sources can be used to cite information regarding internet phenomena. Wikipedia covers internet phenomena in significant detail (see List of internet phenomena for examples), and Natalia's internet following is one example of an internet phenomenon which is widely covered in mainstream media sources in Russia, China, Taiwan, Japan and elsewhere. Regarding your remark regarding "Source: YouTube", that is only used within that article to show the source for the image, as the author at Bloomberg needs to provide image attribution.
You have added a {{ rs}} tag to the Rosbalt.RU citation, however you have not explained why it is not a reliable source in your edit summary or on this talk page. Hence, I have removed your tag. Please clarify the reasoning for tagging this citation.
Regarding the BBC cite, this should not be an issue, since BBC found the topic notable enough to report on the internet phenomenon, and refers to RocketNews24 for information. BBC made the decision for whether it was worth reporting on, and not us; we are just following BBC's lead. Furthermore, RocketNews24's linking of personal websites isn't an issue either; these internet creations were obviously created by, surprise surprise, people. Would you find it unexpected that they wouldn't provide proper attribution for the original creators? Companies aren't creating these artworks, people are, people on the internet. If you look at the articles listed at List of internet phenomena and the citations used, all of the citations third-handedly refer to personal sources for attribution; this is nothing new. Our article on Rickrolling contains third-party reliable sources from CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post and the like, which third-handedly link to Youtube posts and blogs for proper attribution. Again, what is being cited is not biographical information (e.g. "In December 1987, John was arrested for drink driving"), but information regarding an internet event (e.g. "In March 2006, the viral video became popular in Israel"). It is standard for citations relating to internet content to have this form. Regarding the author, if you want to know more about BBC Monitoring, you can read their description here. Sometimes articles write the author as "Associated Press" or "AFP" and not a specific individual if multiple people were responsible for the article, and this article was collectively authored by BBC Monitoring.
Finally, please keep discussion not related to the DYK nom on this article talk page, and not in the DYK nom; article discussion belongs here, and should not clutter the DYK page. I am talking about your comments relating to commonscats over there. Per the Wikipedia discussion page guidelines, I am obligated to delete your comments over there if you do it again. I won't do it this time, because I'll assume that you weren't aware of this. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There have been multiple additional recent occurrences which have been covered here and there, however I've made the suggestion to both Moscow Connection and a few others that it would probably be a better idea to leave them out of the article and not mention it. As I see it, the article works well enough as it currently stands, in regards to the prose balance between each section. These kinds of things are often disagreeable by various editors, and for the sake of the DYK and the overall integrity of the article, we shouldn't let that section grow too big so that WP:UNDUE or WP:CRUFT concerns get brought up again. Whilst explaining how she first rose to becoming famous on the internet is probably significant and important, we can probably afford to leave out things that came afterwards. Examples of things that have been mentioned earlier to me include:
My suggestion is that it isn't necessary to cover these (some are borderline trivial, whilst with others, the article does fine without them), and would like to implore that others consider not writing about these. -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I just removed the 'fan art' images from this article - they are completely unencyclopaedic. Does any other biography on Wikipedia contain amateur fan art of its subject? It seems particularly insulting (and nonsensical) to include cartoon pictures of the subject while having no actual photograph of her in the article - if the cartoons have any value at all, it can only be together with a photograph. Stuff like this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Robofish ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
An additional note: Even though I disagree with such allegations, I've seen cases of people claiming that this page is either "sexist" or "demeaning". If Wikipedia editors are genuinely concerned about sexism in the world, deleting reports of related content from Wikipedia and pretending that the sexism doesn't exist does not fix the sexism, nor does it make the sexism disappear. If content on Wikipedia personally abhors you, do something about it in the real world that will actually make a difference, instead of making Wikipedia a personal box or walled garden. This is the thing I don't understand about social justice on the internet - censoring the content isn't going to make the alleged problem disappear, it's just throwing a blanket over it. American independence was born via bloodshed. Women's suffrage was born via civil disobedience. Democracy in Taiwan was the result of resistance against forced abductions and state murders. If people truly seek a change, the last thing they should be doing is deleting things on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet their world view.
This article reports on things that are reported in third-party sources, and that is all there is to it. If you feel that this is a societal injustice, there are many things you can choose to do, ranging from calling up Russian media outlets to complain, street protests, or political murder. Having a gripe at this article, and the contributors who worked towards building this article, is not constructive towards your personal cause, nor is it fair to the people who put effort into creating this article. In my eyes, it's a silly and bigoted injustice against these Wikipedia editors. Censoring this article because of your personal opinions on the objectification of women simply does not make any logical sense. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
" I Got a Crush... on Obama" ← This may be useful for showing how there are even stand-alone articles about fan art on Wikipedia and it's considered perfectly okay. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Would the parties involved who wish to discuss the inclusion of the images be willing to partake in a DRN? at the dispute noticeboard? (That's if this talk page discussion doesn't work out.) Tutelary ( talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a living individual and this article is governed by BLP rules and procedures. Until there is clear consensus amongst editors here and on the BLP noticeboard that a gallery is appropriate and not a violation of those rules, the gallery should stay out of the article. It seems pretty clear that a large gallery is a violation of BLP, UNDUE, COATRACK, etc., and I will lock this article if I have to. Those eager to see the gallery in the article must make their case before it stays in the article. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Because of the recent edit-warring over the inclusion of the images, I have fully protected the article for 5 days. If a consensus on the matter is reached prior the the automatic expiry of the protection, please request unprotection either at my talk page or at WP:RFUP. If a consensus does not develop, I would recommend a Request for Comment to resolve the dispute. Wikipedia:Help desk can assist with this and the other dispute resolution mechanisms if any user wishes to start an RFC but is unsure how to do so.
Interested editors may also wish to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CIreland ( talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Since a point brought up at the WP:BLPN discussion and with this edit summary was the claim that the images chosen seemed arbitrary and without a defined selection criteria, I guess we can have a discussion here on forming a criteria for inclusion. Hopefully @ Dr.K.: wouldn't mind taking part as well.
My thought is that we should choose images that are proven to be of significance. Two or three images should be enough images to demonstrate variety without being too much; obviously including a giant, limitless gallery of many images is overkill, however only using one image might also be rather unsuitable, as it doesn't adequately demonstrate that there were multiple artists involved, which is something that is cited within article prose. By having at least two images, one image isn't given the whole entire spotlight.
Below is a summary of media coverage and other remarks on each image. Note that only images available on Commons are included; there are various other artworks that also have media coverage, however many artists declined to give permission for the images to be used on Commons via a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license due to various reasons. For example, I was rejected by this Chinese artist because he already had plans in mind.
This is just a quick browse, there is more coverage that I haven't included. Other users may feel free to make any additions as they like below. -- benlisquare T• C• E 07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe the main criteria for inclusion should be whether the image has been used to illustrate the Poklonskaya fan art in reliable sources. See how they did it in the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:ナタリア・ポクロンスカヤ#ネット上のブーム (for every image, there is a link to some reliable source that uses the image). -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 09:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Removing the illustrations depicting that internet phenomenon which started in Asia is not consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. We aren't supposed to narrow ourselves down to Anglophone contexts when we examine notability. - Anonimski ( talk) 20:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm thinking: If a gallery is what's getting people so upset, then why can't we make it like this?
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
This way there's no gallery - one of the points brought up earlier at BLPN was that galleries give extra attention to readers due to the amount of space they take up. -- benlisquare T• C• E 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually saw a report about Maxim Smolev, who drew this picture (on the right), on some Russian TV channel (an interview in connection with his Poklonskaya fan art). And I've found these articles about him probably being one of the first people to draw Poklonskaya: [4], [5] (and [6], [7]). -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the edit that removed "since the creation of the post on 11 March 2014." I think this sentence is needed in the lead. Also, the infobox doesn't say the post was created on 11 March 2014. It only says Natalia Poklonskaya "assumed office 11 March 2014". It's important that the office is a very recent creation (has existed for less than a month as of now), and that Poklonskava was the first person in the office. Parabolooidal ( talk) 23:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is someone able to email the press representative of Prosecutor herself at pressarkproc.ru and request for a free-license photograph? If you tell them the benefits, I'm sure they have good reason to oblige. I'm asking here, because I don't have the Russian language competency to do it. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
No one should be actively intruding on any individual or their family on behalf of Wikipedia or seeking community "approval" of such intrusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally, your idea of "intrusion" is highly misguided - much of what you see today on Wikipedia is the result of so-called "intrusion", and without it, biographical articles would be nothing like they are today. There have been many productive cases of obtaining personal photographs via OTRS in cases where it would have been difficult to personally travel there to take a photograph. It's a normal aspect of contributing to Commons, and if you don't like it, complain to the overall community. -- benlisquare T• C• E 01:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
(Redacting my own personal comments, which belong to me, and me only. See edit history for original text.) -- benlisquare T• C• E 13:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to get a photograph because we don't need one for an article that shouldn't exist. Any email should really apologise for the unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of her privacy and advise her of how she can make a request via ORTS that the article be deleted, because apparently Wikipedia editors are incapable of implementing their own WP:BLP1E policy. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 13:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Why would we ask for a photo for "English Wikipedia"? Why would we not ask for a photo for Commons that can then be used for Wikipedia in all languages? (Including, relevant here, languages of countries that are not actively engaged in sending warplanes etc to defend against actions made by her office's country - might help a bit yes?) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's what I mean:
From a PR point of view, it makes more sense to put the highlight on Wikipedia, and then briefly touching on Commons, than making Commons the highlight. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the real world, and in the real world, the difference between success and failure in wooing someone's attention depends on how you promote your idea, and not the idea itself (how good the idea actually is). Even if you have a really good idea, no one pays attention to badly-presented ideas. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
MC says that he's sent an email, and intends on doing it independently of the above. Since it's holiday season in Russia (Victory Day and whatnot), expect delays. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Ohconfucius have tried to remove the whole Internet popularity section and now is trying to remove images from it. Including the one used for the DYK nomination.
Also, I have reasons to believe that he removed the section and one of the images in an attempt to make it impossible to use the current DYK fact (cause the DYK fact must be mentioned in the article and the picture must be used in the article). Because he did the same very thing on my other DYK nomination, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota. (He repeatedly tried to remove the sentence that mentioned the DYK fact from the Kanako Momota article.)
(And yes, I'm starting this discussion only to follow the formal procedure needed to block him for 3RR.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs) - the whole article is fancruft. In this case, the fans being of either Japanese cartoon-cruft or fans of Russian imperialism-cruft. In such a context, its not surprising that crufty articles get filled with cruft. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel like there should be more information about her in the lead. I haven't researched this person and do not know what aspects make her most notable, but there needs to be something more, imo, aside from simply her job title. Important aspects of her career, and I even think the part where people are making cartoons or whatever of her should be in the lead if it's a significant meme. :-) Bali88 ( talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be people who want to remove this it clearly has third party reliable sources and is notable, what is the justification for removing it. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This was one of the themes of the latest AfD, so I may as well put this out there for future cases. Starship.paint touched on this, since it was one of the claims that the nominator, Launchballer, made, but I thought I'd elaborate a bit for clarity's sake. An Attorney General of a region/national subdivision is notable, we have articles for each Attorney General of California, and articles for each Attorney General of New South Wales. There are articles numbering well into the thousands of such lawmakers of states and provinces from the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand. It's natural that we would follow suit for Attorneys General of Crimea under the same principle; the reason why we don't have many articles on Crimean (or Ukrainian or Russian ones, for that matter) Attorneys General (known as "Prosecutors" within the Slavic world) is simply because people haven't been writing about them yet (surprise surprise, on an Encyclopedia project dominated by western contributors). Again, this is systemic bias in play, something that we should avoid here on this project. -- benlisquare T• C• E 03:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Bringing this up, because it will eventually be brought up anyway. Currently we do not have a real-life photograph or image of her because there is no free-license image available, and we cannot use a copyrighted image. Per WP:NFCC, we cannot use a non-free image of her under fair use, as she is a living person who is not incarcerated, and therefore a free-license image can be made in future. Hence, taking a still shot from a video isn't really suitable from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. Furthermore, given her sudden popularity and following, I don't think it will be long until she's covered by the Russian government in a promo piece, and all images released by the Kremlin are released under a free-license (e.g. File:Vladimir Putin 4 August 2001-2.jpg, File:1st BRIC summit leaders.jpg, File:2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade-13.jpeg, File:Alexander Lukashenko 2007 cropped.jpg). -- benlisquare T• C• E 02:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus: I've added File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg to the article infobox. Instead of choosing a still where she's smiling (as you've suggested above), I've decided to choose one where she maintains a decent amount of eye contact towards the camera (so she's not looking away), I hope you find it satisfactory. If the fair-use rationale needs tweaking, feel free to modify it as you see fit. -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Benlisquare:, @ Piotrus:, @ Starship.paint: The file (again) has been tagged for deletion per CSD F7. Regards, — dain omite 04:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus, Starship.paint, and Dainomite: Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg. -- benlisquare T• C• E 05:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As an example: Imagine if Barack Obama held a press conference at the Oval Office, and an Associated Press photographer took a picture and published it. An artist can draw Barack Obama at a podium at the Oval Office without the artwork having anything to do with the AP photographer's photograph. You cannot state that an artwork is a derivative work of a commercial image simply because it appears similar to it. If multiple people take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and one of them happened to do so on behalf of a commercial entity, does that mean that everyone's Eiffel Tower photographs are derivative works of the commercial entity? No, of course not. The creator of the video is the copyright holder of the video, and not the copyright holder of the press conference. -- benlisquare T• C• E 05:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Look, Masem, I normally support you in many instances of NFCC, for instance the Kim Jong-un article, however I believe that in this case you are going too far in your assumptions of non-free copyright, and I absolutely must disagree with you here. If you believe that File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg does not meet the non-free criteria, and such a view is supported by community discussion, then I will not oppose to its removal. However I do believe that your claims of derivative work for the artworks, both here and at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Natalia Poklonskaya, are unfounded and unnecessary, and threaten the good will of free-license content. I believe that this is becoming silly copyright paranoia. -- benlisquare T• C• E 05:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As an example of what would be undeniably and irrefutably considered a derivative work, this image would be considered a derivative work (pencil sketch based on video footage). This image (warning, NSFW) would be as well (painted artwork based on photographic and video footage), as is this image (a derivative of this meme), and this image (derivative artstyle of the Love Live! television anime series).
I believe that this sort of paranoia hurts free content as a whole. If people are going to have their artworks unfairly labelled as "derivative works", then why would there be any further incentive for people to release works under a Creative Commons license? These artists granted OTRS permission to use such a license based on their good faith and desire to share, only to be shut down as derivatives with unsubstantial evidence. -- benlisquare T• C• E 14:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's another question: Two people simultaneously take a photograph of a deer with special patterns, never to be seen before. Someone else looks at both photographs, and makes an interpretive cubism painting with some form of limited resemblance. Who owns the copyrights? Photographer A, photographer B, or the cubism artist? I keep repeating time and time again, but you keep ignoring it or brushing it aside: ANK was not the only agency there at the conference, and was not the only agency which created visual imagery at that conference. How can you honestly state that, without a doubt, an image is derived from the ANK imagery, and not from somewhere else?
You keep saying that "the few but essential creative elements of the footage, such as lighting and angle" are copyrightable by ANK's video (this is a direct quote from you). Why, then, do you keep ignoring my point that all of these images have differing lighting and angling to the ANK imagery? ASLE owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, Evan Yang owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, and BonKiru owns the copyright to his angles and lighting. What is with this silly double standard that only ANK's angles and lighting matter, and not the angles and lighting of everybody else? Have you not realised the holes within your reasoning? You can't have your balalaika and play it too. -- benlisquare T• C• E 15:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I will now provide a summary as to why the aforementioned artworks cannot be absolutely, concretely and firmly labelled as derivative work of the video footage by Argumenty Nedeli-Krym, so that without a doubt there is evidence to prove that there was not enough threshold of originality and unique work to justify enough originality for these artworks.
Long-winded and verbose explanations
|
---|
|
I hope my verbosity has not been displeasurable. I am very certain that the claim that these images qualify under the label of "derivative work" is preposterous. -- benlisquare T• C• E 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The image has now been deleted: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_50#File:Natalia_Poklonskaya_conference_screenshot_crop.jpg. With a split between support and oppose I believe we should draft a good argument for restoring it and post it at WP:REFUND. Admin's closing statement can be used - it seems to grasp many (through I think not all) of our points for usage. (We could also try to contact the station, and the subject, to ask for a freely licensed image, even if they don't reply it will be another argument for the use of this one, showing the difficulty in obtaining the replacement).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Mainly it over emphasizes pictures of her as cute Japanese ( Kawaii) cartoon images and lacks an image of what she looks like in reality, inappropriate for a serious article on a living person. Also some of the citations are to unreliable sources, like an opinion piece in Bloomberg News and to a youtube video in Russian untranslated.
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ( editorials) or outside authors ( op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
Parabolooidal ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Senior Counsellor of Justice" refers to her rank, "Prosecutor" refers to her occupational position. Rank and position are not the same thing, so please don't get them confused. A tank commander can also be a sergeant, but a sergeant is not necessarily a tank commander.
You mention that there are no images of her real life appearance, however this is definitely beyond our control: There have been numerous discussions regarding a non-free fair use image of her in real life, and such an image that was previously uploaded has since been deleted. It's an unfortunate case that there is no free-license photographic imagery of her available, however this is a sad truth that we can't really solve at this stage. Artists who draw cartoons of her are more willing to release their works under free licenses than media photographers working for Russian agencies (apparently on the Russian Wikipedia, people have attempted to contact various media agencies, but these attempts have yet to bear any results), most likely because these photographers rely on such photographs to make money. Good faith donations are more likely to occur when people are creating works voluntarily, as opposed to it being part of their daily employment, and I don't blame them for that. -- benlisquare T• C• E 12:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Parabolooidal: Would you like to constructively help with improving the referencing of this article? Because I'd prefer it if you would co-operate, there's no other way to improve sourcing if you don't. Surely you would prefer to see the article improved so that it doesn't contain problems? If we keep the talk to sourcing and souring only for now, we might be able to actually solve this problem.
I have removed all BloombergView citations from the biography section, however I have kept them within the internet section, and removed their tags. The BloombergView cite is an editorial piece, and therefore should not be used to cite biographical information, however this article isn't purely biographical, and such sources can be used to cite information regarding internet phenomena. Wikipedia covers internet phenomena in significant detail (see List of internet phenomena for examples), and Natalia's internet following is one example of an internet phenomenon which is widely covered in mainstream media sources in Russia, China, Taiwan, Japan and elsewhere. Regarding your remark regarding "Source: YouTube", that is only used within that article to show the source for the image, as the author at Bloomberg needs to provide image attribution.
You have added a {{ rs}} tag to the Rosbalt.RU citation, however you have not explained why it is not a reliable source in your edit summary or on this talk page. Hence, I have removed your tag. Please clarify the reasoning for tagging this citation.
Regarding the BBC cite, this should not be an issue, since BBC found the topic notable enough to report on the internet phenomenon, and refers to RocketNews24 for information. BBC made the decision for whether it was worth reporting on, and not us; we are just following BBC's lead. Furthermore, RocketNews24's linking of personal websites isn't an issue either; these internet creations were obviously created by, surprise surprise, people. Would you find it unexpected that they wouldn't provide proper attribution for the original creators? Companies aren't creating these artworks, people are, people on the internet. If you look at the articles listed at List of internet phenomena and the citations used, all of the citations third-handedly refer to personal sources for attribution; this is nothing new. Our article on Rickrolling contains third-party reliable sources from CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post and the like, which third-handedly link to Youtube posts and blogs for proper attribution. Again, what is being cited is not biographical information (e.g. "In December 1987, John was arrested for drink driving"), but information regarding an internet event (e.g. "In March 2006, the viral video became popular in Israel"). It is standard for citations relating to internet content to have this form. Regarding the author, if you want to know more about BBC Monitoring, you can read their description here. Sometimes articles write the author as "Associated Press" or "AFP" and not a specific individual if multiple people were responsible for the article, and this article was collectively authored by BBC Monitoring.
Finally, please keep discussion not related to the DYK nom on this article talk page, and not in the DYK nom; article discussion belongs here, and should not clutter the DYK page. I am talking about your comments relating to commonscats over there. Per the Wikipedia discussion page guidelines, I am obligated to delete your comments over there if you do it again. I won't do it this time, because I'll assume that you weren't aware of this. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There have been multiple additional recent occurrences which have been covered here and there, however I've made the suggestion to both Moscow Connection and a few others that it would probably be a better idea to leave them out of the article and not mention it. As I see it, the article works well enough as it currently stands, in regards to the prose balance between each section. These kinds of things are often disagreeable by various editors, and for the sake of the DYK and the overall integrity of the article, we shouldn't let that section grow too big so that WP:UNDUE or WP:CRUFT concerns get brought up again. Whilst explaining how she first rose to becoming famous on the internet is probably significant and important, we can probably afford to leave out things that came afterwards. Examples of things that have been mentioned earlier to me include:
My suggestion is that it isn't necessary to cover these (some are borderline trivial, whilst with others, the article does fine without them), and would like to implore that others consider not writing about these. -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I just removed the 'fan art' images from this article - they are completely unencyclopaedic. Does any other biography on Wikipedia contain amateur fan art of its subject? It seems particularly insulting (and nonsensical) to include cartoon pictures of the subject while having no actual photograph of her in the article - if the cartoons have any value at all, it can only be together with a photograph. Stuff like this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Robofish ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
An additional note: Even though I disagree with such allegations, I've seen cases of people claiming that this page is either "sexist" or "demeaning". If Wikipedia editors are genuinely concerned about sexism in the world, deleting reports of related content from Wikipedia and pretending that the sexism doesn't exist does not fix the sexism, nor does it make the sexism disappear. If content on Wikipedia personally abhors you, do something about it in the real world that will actually make a difference, instead of making Wikipedia a personal box or walled garden. This is the thing I don't understand about social justice on the internet - censoring the content isn't going to make the alleged problem disappear, it's just throwing a blanket over it. American independence was born via bloodshed. Women's suffrage was born via civil disobedience. Democracy in Taiwan was the result of resistance against forced abductions and state murders. If people truly seek a change, the last thing they should be doing is deleting things on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet their world view.
This article reports on things that are reported in third-party sources, and that is all there is to it. If you feel that this is a societal injustice, there are many things you can choose to do, ranging from calling up Russian media outlets to complain, street protests, or political murder. Having a gripe at this article, and the contributors who worked towards building this article, is not constructive towards your personal cause, nor is it fair to the people who put effort into creating this article. In my eyes, it's a silly and bigoted injustice against these Wikipedia editors. Censoring this article because of your personal opinions on the objectification of women simply does not make any logical sense. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
" I Got a Crush... on Obama" ← This may be useful for showing how there are even stand-alone articles about fan art on Wikipedia and it's considered perfectly okay. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Would the parties involved who wish to discuss the inclusion of the images be willing to partake in a DRN? at the dispute noticeboard? (That's if this talk page discussion doesn't work out.) Tutelary ( talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a living individual and this article is governed by BLP rules and procedures. Until there is clear consensus amongst editors here and on the BLP noticeboard that a gallery is appropriate and not a violation of those rules, the gallery should stay out of the article. It seems pretty clear that a large gallery is a violation of BLP, UNDUE, COATRACK, etc., and I will lock this article if I have to. Those eager to see the gallery in the article must make their case before it stays in the article. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Because of the recent edit-warring over the inclusion of the images, I have fully protected the article for 5 days. If a consensus on the matter is reached prior the the automatic expiry of the protection, please request unprotection either at my talk page or at WP:RFUP. If a consensus does not develop, I would recommend a Request for Comment to resolve the dispute. Wikipedia:Help desk can assist with this and the other dispute resolution mechanisms if any user wishes to start an RFC but is unsure how to do so.
Interested editors may also wish to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CIreland ( talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Since a point brought up at the WP:BLPN discussion and with this edit summary was the claim that the images chosen seemed arbitrary and without a defined selection criteria, I guess we can have a discussion here on forming a criteria for inclusion. Hopefully @ Dr.K.: wouldn't mind taking part as well.
My thought is that we should choose images that are proven to be of significance. Two or three images should be enough images to demonstrate variety without being too much; obviously including a giant, limitless gallery of many images is overkill, however only using one image might also be rather unsuitable, as it doesn't adequately demonstrate that there were multiple artists involved, which is something that is cited within article prose. By having at least two images, one image isn't given the whole entire spotlight.
Below is a summary of media coverage and other remarks on each image. Note that only images available on Commons are included; there are various other artworks that also have media coverage, however many artists declined to give permission for the images to be used on Commons via a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license due to various reasons. For example, I was rejected by this Chinese artist because he already had plans in mind.
This is just a quick browse, there is more coverage that I haven't included. Other users may feel free to make any additions as they like below. -- benlisquare T• C• E 07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe the main criteria for inclusion should be whether the image has been used to illustrate the Poklonskaya fan art in reliable sources. See how they did it in the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:ナタリア・ポクロンスカヤ#ネット上のブーム (for every image, there is a link to some reliable source that uses the image). -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 09:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Removing the illustrations depicting that internet phenomenon which started in Asia is not consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. We aren't supposed to narrow ourselves down to Anglophone contexts when we examine notability. - Anonimski ( talk) 20:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm thinking: If a gallery is what's getting people so upset, then why can't we make it like this?
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
This way there's no gallery - one of the points brought up earlier at BLPN was that galleries give extra attention to readers due to the amount of space they take up. -- benlisquare T• C• E 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually saw a report about Maxim Smolev, who drew this picture (on the right), on some Russian TV channel (an interview in connection with his Poklonskaya fan art). And I've found these articles about him probably being one of the first people to draw Poklonskaya: [4], [5] (and [6], [7]). -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the edit that removed "since the creation of the post on 11 March 2014." I think this sentence is needed in the lead. Also, the infobox doesn't say the post was created on 11 March 2014. It only says Natalia Poklonskaya "assumed office 11 March 2014". It's important that the office is a very recent creation (has existed for less than a month as of now), and that Poklonskava was the first person in the office. Parabolooidal ( talk) 23:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is someone able to email the press representative of Prosecutor herself at pressarkproc.ru and request for a free-license photograph? If you tell them the benefits, I'm sure they have good reason to oblige. I'm asking here, because I don't have the Russian language competency to do it. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
No one should be actively intruding on any individual or their family on behalf of Wikipedia or seeking community "approval" of such intrusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally, your idea of "intrusion" is highly misguided - much of what you see today on Wikipedia is the result of so-called "intrusion", and without it, biographical articles would be nothing like they are today. There have been many productive cases of obtaining personal photographs via OTRS in cases where it would have been difficult to personally travel there to take a photograph. It's a normal aspect of contributing to Commons, and if you don't like it, complain to the overall community. -- benlisquare T• C• E 01:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
(Redacting my own personal comments, which belong to me, and me only. See edit history for original text.) -- benlisquare T• C• E 13:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to get a photograph because we don't need one for an article that shouldn't exist. Any email should really apologise for the unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of her privacy and advise her of how she can make a request via ORTS that the article be deleted, because apparently Wikipedia editors are incapable of implementing their own WP:BLP1E policy. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 13:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Why would we ask for a photo for "English Wikipedia"? Why would we not ask for a photo for Commons that can then be used for Wikipedia in all languages? (Including, relevant here, languages of countries that are not actively engaged in sending warplanes etc to defend against actions made by her office's country - might help a bit yes?) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's what I mean:
From a PR point of view, it makes more sense to put the highlight on Wikipedia, and then briefly touching on Commons, than making Commons the highlight. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the real world, and in the real world, the difference between success and failure in wooing someone's attention depends on how you promote your idea, and not the idea itself (how good the idea actually is). Even if you have a really good idea, no one pays attention to badly-presented ideas. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
MC says that he's sent an email, and intends on doing it independently of the above. Since it's holiday season in Russia (Victory Day and whatnot), expect delays. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Ohconfucius have tried to remove the whole Internet popularity section and now is trying to remove images from it. Including the one used for the DYK nomination.
Also, I have reasons to believe that he removed the section and one of the images in an attempt to make it impossible to use the current DYK fact (cause the DYK fact must be mentioned in the article and the picture must be used in the article). Because he did the same very thing on my other DYK nomination, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota. (He repeatedly tried to remove the sentence that mentioned the DYK fact from the Kanako Momota article.)
(And yes, I'm starting this discussion only to follow the formal procedure needed to block him for 3RR.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs) - the whole article is fancruft. In this case, the fans being of either Japanese cartoon-cruft or fans of Russian imperialism-cruft. In such a context, its not surprising that crufty articles get filled with cruft. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel like there should be more information about her in the lead. I haven't researched this person and do not know what aspects make her most notable, but there needs to be something more, imo, aside from simply her job title. Important aspects of her career, and I even think the part where people are making cartoons or whatever of her should be in the lead if it's a significant meme. :-) Bali88 ( talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be people who want to remove this it clearly has third party reliable sources and is notable, what is the justification for removing it. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This was one of the themes of the latest AfD, so I may as well put this out there for future cases. Starship.paint touched on this, since it was one of the claims that the nominator, Launchballer, made, but I thought I'd elaborate a bit for clarity's sake. An Attorney General of a region/national subdivision is notable, we have articles for each Attorney General of California, and articles for each Attorney General of New South Wales. There are articles numbering well into the thousands of such lawmakers of states and provinces from the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand. It's natural that we would follow suit for Attorneys General of Crimea under the same principle; the reason why we don't have many articles on Crimean (or Ukrainian or Russian ones, for that matter) Attorneys General (known as "Prosecutors" within the Slavic world) is simply because people haven't been writing about them yet (surprise surprise, on an Encyclopedia project dominated by western contributors). Again, this is systemic bias in play, something that we should avoid here on this project. -- benlisquare T• C• E 03:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)