Talk:Enrique Tarrio

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Which photo of Enrique Tarrio should we use in the article infobox? TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Portrait of Enrique Tarrio (original)

B Tarrio at a gathering in 2020

Survey

• B, The photo shows what he looked like doing things he was known to do. Additionally, despite the fact that he is wearing sunglasses and a hat he is clearly distinguishable. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B is more representative and less promotional. The alternative has been digitally altered from its original by Wikipedians and is thus inappropriate. Feoffer (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it is inappropriate for Wikipedians to alter a problematic upload from an SPA with no reliable sourcing so as to remove evidence that the upload was "obviously photoshopped". Feoffer (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your position, which has no basis in policy and is pushing AGF a bit, in the discussion section? VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pushing AGF a bit To clarify, I'm not accusing anyone of duplicity or anything else bad faith. Our local retoucher probably didn't even notice the original image was a photomanip, I didn't until it was pointed out to me. Feoffer (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, for the love of Jimbo, makes you think a digital background in a portrait is problematic? VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:NOR, It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light. IF we could verify the original image was with a revolutionary flag, it would not be okay for us to photoshop that flag out. In this case, obvious photoshopping means we can't even verify the SPA's image is authentic. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No, that policy is irrelevant here. This is a background to a portrait, not a materially significant change that distorts the facts or position illustrated by the image. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think setting a precedence to use photoshopped images for any reason in Wikipedia of all places can be dangerous. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:IMAGEOR, which precludes image manipulation that changes facts or position related to a subject. That's not a concern here. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that there inevitably are greenscreen background images used in Wikipedia. A vast majority of them will be non-trivial. I wasn't even commenting that it was the use case in this particular RFC's subject matter. I was simply stating my personal preference, of erring on the side of non-greenscreened/manipulatied photos. Thank you for clarifying the policy though, I will take it under advisement and agree with your assessment. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A per past consensus, and my arguments there — in brief, that we prefer higher-quality images where the subject's face is not obscured (such as by a hat and sunglasses). Removing a background (that was clearly photoshopped into the original upload, I might add) does not make the image unsuitable — in fact, in this case, it makes it more suitable for use. Feoffer's comment that digitally altering a photograph automatically makes it inappropriate is not at all supported by policy or common practice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A has everything we want in a lead photo; subject clear and not obscured (other than the hand on his face), looking towards the camera. B has some obscuration due to the hat and sunglasses in the midst of a more chaotic scene and he's not looking to the camera, making it a good body photo. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A is more suitable as a lead image, since it clearly shows the subject's face (it would be even better if we had one where the hand isn't obscuring part of it, but so far as I can find we don't have a free image of him like that.) B is more suitable for use in the article body. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A Clear view of his face. Option B has him wearing a hat, sunglasses, and not looking towards the camera. Some1 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B Per the thread above, this is the appearance Tarrio is best known for according to the New York Times. News articles on him commonly use photos depicting him in similar attire attire rather than a business suit. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B I think that both photos have strengths and weaknesses. But I find photo B better represents what Tarrio is best known for. The cap and the sunglasses are part of his image, and the tactical gear, the walkie talkie, and especially the strangely colored American flag patches, one on his cap which has an assault rifle on it, and the other has a reference to 5.11 Tactical. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B Like the last RFC we had on this, I think B is a better photo. In its unedited form, the previous version of A was clearly intended as propaganda and therefore inappropriate. But I do still think that A, even after editing, is intended by Tarrio to promote a certain image of himself (namely, as the leader of an ordinary conservative organization and not, y'know, a fascist gang) and therefore has
  WP:POV issues. I also am not a huge fan of using an edited image of Tarrio no matter how well it shows his face. Loki (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I also want to point out that, while people have been saying that A is a "higher quality" image, from a pure image editing perspective that's not actually true. They're very similar image quality pictures, to the point that trying to pick out which one is better is not really possible. Loki (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A, the key purpose of an infobox image is to portray the subject. What he's "best known for" is both subjective and irrelevant. No objection to the use of B elsewhere in the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B, the other photo is still nothing but propaganda regardless if the background flag has been blanked out. It's fruit from a poisoned tree. The photo is so bad that it shouldn't even be considered a reasonable choice in the first place and I'm really disappointed in the people who are picking A now and in the past. Clarity, resolution, face not obscured, face looking at camera, and all these trivial matters are ridiculous arguments to override one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: that we are neutral. You are being blinded by the details and not seeing the bigger picture. Choosing A is basically saying "Hey, controversial people, send us your most biased picture possible that sends the rosiest message it can about you and so long as it's professionally/technically well done, we'll use it!". The fact that some of you supporting A are administrators is awful are severely calls into question your judgement as far as I'm concerned. An article without a picture would be better than using A. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B - scrolling through Google images indicates this is what he looks like, this is who he is. The other option looks like he might have been sitting in court waiting to be sentenced to 22 years. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 23:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I still prefer image A, as per the original discussion. Arguments about WP not using digitally altered images is nonsense; I spent over a decade editing images here. Many are infobox or primary images. Feel free to post any requests on my talk page. @Feoffer I'd be happy to correct any image editing artifacts but I couldn't spot any. Are you sure you were looking at the full-resolution image? What you saw may have been compression artifacts. nagualdesign 18:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A I'm not really fond of either image and if that's the case on a RFC question about an infobox image I'll just lean back on the previous consensus choice. Nemov (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support B - Agree with User:Feoffer's comments about B being "more representative and less promotional". At the same time though, I agree with other editor's comments about B being "obscured". I'm not sure either of these options are great. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B More representative of what the subject is notable for. Subject's face is not obscured, other than by the sunglasses. I also think "A"'s face is more obscured because of the hand in front of the face. Wes sideman (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A Because in "B" he is not recognizable. --93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) — 93.45.229.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  This is simply not true and a personal attack. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been blocked for edit warring on a different article. Wes sideman (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @LokiTheLiar Please remove the falsity you entered (namely, "has made few or no other edits outside this topic"). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect here, that is:

  a) not really my accusation: the tag was meant to summarize Wes_sideman's comment below.

  b) as far as I can tell, true (almost all your edits are not just about politics but usually a fairly narrow band of politics, especially extremist right-wing or libertarian politics). Loki (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My edits involve articles on liberalism, libertarianism, fascism, racism, futurism, pantarchism, iusnaturalism, militianism, racial separatism, whig history, conservatism, religion, etc., etc. This is not necessarily related to Enrique Tarrio ("this topic"). Your argument can be applied to all the editors of this article, even yourself. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• B Along with conversations above, this photo is more representative of what Enrique is notable for and is itself a high quality photo. 198.145.150.65 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A His face is simply too obscured in the other. ~ HAL333 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither B obscures too much of his face. Compare to Roy Orbison and Sean Combs, where the face is only slightly to the side. The glasses are not completely opaque, and no hat is worn. A is a more clear shot but less neutral. Senorangel (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A of course, looking at camera, face unobscured. Use B in body.--GRuban (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• B-(Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would go with the notion previously echoed by many that a photo giving weight to more of what the subject is known for over choice "A". MaximusEditor (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A per VQuakr. Should we use
  Cremastra (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment to closer I count !votes as 11-10 in favor of B, discounting an SPA ip !voter. I note that rationales supporting A are accused of being weak, both by myself and other commenters. Many rationales deny that images should be "
  simply cite past consensus. Others simply ignore the WP:V and WP:NPOV concerns that have been raised and state a personal preference. In contrast, multiple rationales raise well-founded concerns about A's inclusion in the article. There is no consensus to include A in the article. Feoffer (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:CR a couple of days ago given that discussion/voting had slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• It's not clear to me why an RfC is needed here when consensus was already reached on this topic two years ago. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CCC? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @GorillaWarfare, per @Muboshgu's comment. Also there's been editing around this in the last few days and I think it would be preferable if it wasn't reverted back and forth. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it should remain at the prior consensus image (the one marked A in this RfC) unless/until new consensus emerges. Indeed consensus can change; an RfC just seems a bit like overkill, but no harm if that's the route you'd like to go. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest with Nick's thread above I thought a new consensus had emerged. That obviously wasn't the case. You are correct that the image should remain as the previously arrived at consensus unless/until new consensus emerges. TarnishedPath^talk 01:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't speak too soon! There's still most of a month of RFC-time to go! Loki (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Recoil16, @Nick-D, @VQuakr, @Jason Quinn, @Cullen328, @Nagualdesign, @Adolphus79 and @TuffStuffMcG as editors who have previously been involved in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I the only one who finds the photoediting artifacts in A to be SUPER jarring? His right shoulder is especially hard to ignore. Feoffer (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even after the confederate flag has been edited out, I find it problematic that he's displayed in a promotional manner. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand and agree with wanting to nix the flag, but I don't understand how a plain portrait can be "display[ing someone] in a promotional manner". For the sake of example, I'll pick two photos from the main page right now: File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png &nbsp File:Pedro Sánchez in 2023.jpg

How is this photo more "promotional" than these? Or any of these? GorillaWarfare :(she/her • talk) 04:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's a matter of tone. It projects an image of him that doesn't gel with who he actually is, which is a common thug and criminal. I don't know either of those other two people (I'm Australian, so I'm not automatically going to know who every American personality is) so I can't comment on how the images you've presented may or may not be promotional in any sense. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this photo more "promotional" than these?

Aside from things others have said, we wikipedians actually took it upon ourselves to "sanitize" his confederate flag image in a way that makes him seem more professional than the original image. That's crossing a hard NPOV line. Feoffer (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This gets to a topic that was covered at the last discussion, where I'll just repeat what I said then: The neutral option here is to use the best photo available for all subjects, not try to apply value judgments to article subjects to determine who gets to have a flattering photo. As came up in that conversation, articles for subjects like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy are all quite high-quality and generally flattering, even though all of those people are almost universally considered to have been monstrous individuals. That's because we use the highest-quality free image available, not the ones that we think portray our personal value judgments on the subject. (The examples are English pop singer Adele and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, by the way). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer, I prefer the sans-flag image to the with-flag one (in no small part because it's a lot less visually busy, and the flag is very obviously photoshopped in to the original photo), but would still take with-flag over hat-and-sunglasses. That said, I disagree that removing a portion of an image that's not relevant to what it's meant to show, such as the background in a portrait of a person, is a NPOV issue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

obviously photoshopped in to the original photo WP:V isn't met -- We shouldn't be publishing a

WP:SPS that's obviously photoshopped. Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, can you point to the policy or guideline you're referencing? Wikipedia routinely uses photos that are retouched/photoshopped, and there's no "verifiability" concern. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Retouched" is not the extent of the possibilities. The image, which is VERY unrepresentative of the subject, might be created from whole cloth. The mugshot and protest photo aren't SPS. Feoffer (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. A retouched image or even a painted portrait would be fine provided they look like the subject. VQuakr (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think both are high quality images, the fact that in the second one he is wearing sunglasses and a hat makes him no less distinguishable. Given that I consider both to be high quality then I guess for me other things are fair game for consideration. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the choices are between a photo with a confederate flag edited out and the man on the wrong side of a conflict at an historic black church, then the options for flattering portrayals are limited. Ender and Peter 17:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what was originally behind him in photo A? Just an office wall of some kind? Or a green screen? Why not use the original version of photo A if someone slanderously added a confederate flag? Ender and Peter 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enderandpeter:, I believe the original photo had the Confederate flag in the background. It was edited out to create option A. Wes sideman (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But some have been arguing that the flag was edited in. If so, what was in fact the original background? Why is the only appropriate image of this person one that has to be digitally edited? If there was a picture of the article subject with a natural normal background, surely we'd be looking at it.

I would not be surprised if Option B is more neutral than his self-photos. Take a moment to realize that proponents of Option A are advocating for taking time to remove unflattering imagery from his promotional portraits... imagery that, likely, his supporters consider flattering. Ender and Peter 18:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion of your political positions and/or baseless claims. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman: the original had a Betsy Ross American flag in the background, which was visually distracting. Not a confederate flag as some have inaccurately stated. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am looking more closely at the flag in the original image compared to the 13-stripe, 13-star Betsy Ross flag and it does look more like that than the stars and bars flags. Yes, that is worth clarifying. Ender and Peter 05:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I did not suggest I want him portrayed in a negative light so your reply is off-base. What I have suggested (and stated before) is photo A was deliberately uploaded to portray him in a positive light and that it is non-neutral. I do not think removal of the flag background solved this. The single-purpose account that uploaded this photo likely has directly affiliation with the article's subject which compounds the question of this photo's neutral status. But let's now talk about photo B too: it's literally of picture of him in public doing the kind of thing that made him newsworthy. In a very real sense, it is objectively a fair representation of him that is connected to his reason for being notable by our standard; saying so requires no judgment call regarding whether it puts him in a more positive or negative light. So the choices presented here are between a photo of him doing that for which he made national headlines, and a derivative image (hence "fruit from a poisoned tree" comment) of what is perhaps literally among most obvious propaganda photos imaginable. The former is a reasonable neutral choice whereas the latter is not. The technical properties suggested for choosing A do not fix its inherent non-neutrality. Regarding the rest of your comment, good faith and poor judgement are not mutually exclusive ideas. I have clearly stated the arguments why I believe this image violates our neutrality pillar. This is not a circumstance where I think the arguments on each side are comparably sound. The technical and trivial reasons people are suggesting to prefer A, if allowed to sway neutrality questions, are an existential threat to the trustworthiness of Wikipedia itself. We should not tolerate such obvious manipulation of articles by the subjects themselves, let alone embrace it by groupthink. So, even assuming good faith, I still maintain supporting A is extremely poor judgement that demonstrates a very grave misunderstanding of the kind of neutral encyclopedia originally envisioned for Wikipedia and I do hold administrators to a higher standard for having a deep understanding of not only our policies but most importantly their purpose. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you want the subject of the article to be presented in a more negative light

That's not what Jason, Isaidnoway, or the rest of us are saying at all. NPOV requires us to be representative of what's depicted in RS. Tarrio is never depicted in RSes as a man sitting behind a desk -- we are completely alone in depicting him that way, and sure enough, it's because the user who uploaded this image had a Conflict of Interest and was, at best, editing on behalf of the subject, if not creating an image out of whole cloth. Feoffer (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just specify that it is a promotional portrait (i.e., "Promotional portrait, 2020"). In Photo B, the cap covers the head and the glasses cover the eyes. In addition, it's a side-view photo. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say my counter-arguments to the most representative photo argument are:

- Tarrio's typical uniform is the black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirt, not the mission impossible suit with the bulletproof vest;

- At formal conservative conferences he uses the blue suit (e.g., the Turning Point USA conference). See photos with Donald Trump Jr. and Ted Cruz;

- The eyes are not visible; eye color should not be taken for granted;

- Covered head;

- Facial features are less visible in photo B.

Plus even in photo B there are distracting elements: the U.S. flag with the motto "Always Be Ready" and the come and take it rifle flag. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a review of commons reveals that the image which A was based off was uploaded by a
  WP:SPA, commons:User:Peterdukephoto. Online searches for them reveals their Facebook page where they push MAGA. They even have promotional photos of Tarrio, promoting him for congress. This is way over the top POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It's bad enough for a COIed SPA to upload an unrepresentative subject photo, but in the ensuing discussion, we've learned that it's actually an obviously-photoshopped unrepresentative photo. After discussion, inclusion of A in the article remains controversial. Feoffer (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how things work in commons. Is that sort of thing covered by their policies? TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh it's a clear violation of COM:ADVERT, but one step at a time; first priority is document a lack of consensus for its inclusion in the article. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a violation of ADVERT, nor is it problematic at all to use. I'm also not clear on why anyone thinks retouching is a problem; this is ubiquitous in modern portraits. I believe the removal of the American flag background was by User:Nagualdesign, not the original uploader. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand, photos released by an entity connected to a public figure are in common use everywhere in Wikipedia. Compare with Dick Durbin or Charles Koch, for example. The suggestion that this is somehow a flagrant violation of any policy or guideline is, to be frank, absurd. As for the background - Feoffer are you really not familiar with green screen portraits? Are my children's school pictures somehow less authentic because the background is inserted digitally? These are frivolous issues being raised. VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we're repeating ourselves here. Dick Durbin and Charles Koch's images are representative of their depictions in RSes, while Tarrio is never depicted in RSes as a man behind a desk. Per many other voices, the Tarrio PR image failes NPOV. Feoffer (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's a different frivolous argument. Are you conceding, then, that your reasonings about COI, ADVERT, and retouching are silly? Charles Koch is infrequently pictured standing in a field, yet our picture of him in his biography does so. Do you believe that's a NPOV issue as well? Can you see how your position (that a mugshot is not a NPOV issue but sitting behind a desk somehow is), is not a position that results in you being taken seriously as an editor? It should not be our goal as editors to portray subjects in a particular light, especially in a BLP. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you conceding, then, that your reasonings about COI, ADVERT, and retouching are silly? Nope, don't know how you got that out of anything I've said.

  your position (that a mugshot is not a NPOV issue but sitting behind a desk somehow is)

  The mug shot has been used in RSes, the promo image has not -- I can

  guidelines on how to use mugshots, I wouldn't have agreed with the use of a mugshot prior to sentencing, but a mugshot is a fine NPOV representation of someone notable for their multi-decade prison sentence. IF we didn't have other options, we would just upload the mug and be on our way. Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Nope, don't know how you got that out of anything I've said. Then don't change the subject until you've addressed those items. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot

Is there a reason we can't use Tarrio's mugshot, which is readily available and (I think) constitutes fair use? There are plenty of other articles about people mainly known for criminal activity that include mugshots as the profile pic, so this can't be all that controversial a choice. It's a high-quality image, head-on, unobscured. Wes sideman (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image?

It's a lower-quality image than either A or B and using a mugshot presents similar-but-reverse NPOV problems to image A. I would object using a mugshot on any article, certainly any article where the subject of the article's primary source of notability is something other than being a criminal. Loki (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think the mugshot is preferable to A if it is available to us to use, I'm unsure how much agreement it would get though. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I would prefer no image to either A or the mugshot (but not B). Loki (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly prefer no image to A. Feoffer (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I stated I'm unsure how much agreement that photo would get. As far as I'm concerned B is my preferred photo, but I would take the mugshot over A if it came down to a third option. TarnishedPath^talk 01:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My views align closely to TarnishedPath's. As I've made clear above, for me A is unacceptable on neutrality grounds. While I agree mugshots can present a neutrality issue, I reject any false equivalence suggested between A and the mugshot over neutrality; the non-neutrality concerns with the mugshot are minimal when viewed in context. So the contending choices are between B, the mugshot, and no photo. I do not feel strongly between these three remaining choices. Perhaps I lean slightly towards B although any of the three will find no objection from me. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mugshot is an obvious choice and we absolutely should use it. Feoffer (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know much about this person, but would the mugshot be acceptable in this case per
  WP:MUG? Nemov (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  January 6 insurrection. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but he's earned the distinction of receiving the longest sentence so far out of anyone involved in the insurrection. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:MUG approves of our usage -- conviction has been obtained and it's a primary source of the subject's notoriety. We wouldn't want to use a MUG before sentencing, but there's no BLP issue with a mug from someone sentenced to multiple decades for a notable crime. Feoffer (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Based on
  WP:MUG, and the fact that Tarrio has been convicted and sentenced to 22 years, and this discussion, I think the mugshot is a better option than A or B. Wes sideman (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Wes sideman, that image was previously used in a part of of the article lower down from the infobox. At some point it's been removed and I don't know why. I had a quick look through the revision history to a point where it was in and it doesn't seem to be in commons anymore. We'd need to know why it was removed if we were going to consider removing using it again. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Image was removed in this edit by @ImageRemovalBot. There's a bit of any essay on the user talk page which explains why that might be the case. Basically we can't just claim fair use and stick it up, that's my reading. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. There are hundreds of mug shots in commons that are marked as "fair use"; why would this particular one be any different? Wes sideman (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's something that needs to actually be done to make it clear that it's fair use because it was produced by a government department and no one owns the copyright and whoever uploaded the photo didn't do that? I don't know. I've never uploaded media to commons before. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero images on commons marked as "fair use"; if you see any, please point them out, and they will be hastily deleted. The entire point of Wikimedia Commons is to only host free, not fair use, images. --GRuban (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an FBI mugshot is available (i.e., a public domain mugshot) with proper contrasts and good resolution I am in favor with the proposal. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a freely-licensed version available? This was recently deleted at

WP:NFCCP #1 and #8. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That was predicated on the assumption that a free alternative existed. This RFC demonstrates it doesn't. Feoffer (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images of living people rarely are kept after a NFCC challenge because most non-free images aren't necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject (criterion #8). VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors would agree that a mugshot, in this case, is necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, as his primary notability comes from his arrest, conviction, and sentencing to 22 years in prison. Wes sideman (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, generally no. Saying in text the subject's legal status conveys the same information. The subject was absolutely notable prior to his legal troubles. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, do you have an understanding of how the photo classifies as "non-free"? My limited understanding of US copyright law is that any US government authority, including police/sheriffs/etc, can't hold copyright. That therefore means that any content they produce including mugshots is without copyright and is therefore necessarily free for any and every usage. Is my understanding incorrect? TarnishedPath^talk 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard lists Virginia govt documents as presumably public domain, but some other states do copyright their works. But even from those states, I've never known us to challenge a mugshot except with the justification that it's unnecessary because of a free equivalent. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited knowledge I thought the only exception lies where a government body has a private business produce copyrightable works. There's a wiki article on it at Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States, I just discovered. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer you are correct, it varies between states. So next question, and this might seem like a dumb one because I'm Australian not a US citizen, who produced that mugshot? Is that a federal government thing, from the District of Columbia or a state police thing or a county sheriff thing? Where did it come from exactly? TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the overlay it appears to have been created by the Alexandria Police Department, but I am not an expert. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies; if you find our practice too conservative (a defensible position), strive to change our policies. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@VQuakr, it seems like something that is ripe for potential gaming, not suggesting that actually occurred, if no exploration is done about the origins of an image and if it is without actual copyright or not. TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption on Wikipedia is that all images are non-free unless proven otherwise, per

WP:CONEXCEPT. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've found this in any case. The image is not in the public domain. "Virginia law specifies that copyrightable materials created by state employees within the scope of their employment are the intellectual property of the commonwealth". The way it was being used in the article previously was only for decorative purposes and there was no commentary about the image at all. There was no transformative usage and as such it didn't come anywhere close to fair usage. In that context I'm not surprised it was deleted. TarnishedPath^talk 23:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We simply cannot use a non-free image in a biography of a living person. Especially when freely licensed images of that person are available. It is out of the question. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We simply cannot use a non-free image in a biography of a living person That's simply not so. It might be harder to get consensus for such an image, especially when we have B, but it's not inherently impossible. Feoffer (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, a

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not let us violate policy on this. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not technically impossible. See

WP:NFC: non-free content can be used in narrow circumstances, and as far as I can tell there's no specific exception for BLPs. But since B is definitely a free photo of Tarrio that we could use, we definitely fail the criteria for the use of non-free content on this article. Loki (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@LokiTheLiar: yeah but you're answering a different question here. I'm aware of NFCC, of course; that's not the suggestion I replied to. An image either meets NFCC for a particular article or it doesn't; that's not a decision subject to consensus as suggested by Feoffer. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hundreds. Not sure if I should, though -- if I show you a big pile of beans, aren't you just going to want to stuff them up your nose? Feoffer (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trust me, bro..." but that's not what WP:BEANS says. You may be thinking of WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]