Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tank man
It is short - only about one and a half screen of info. But...what else can we write on this subject? It seems pretty comprehensive for me. And the photo is excellent. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- regarding the controversy over the photo, I have contacted Jeff Widener's employer to see if I can get him to give us permission. I will update you all on the results. ALKIVAR™
04:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jeff Widener directed me to Chuck Zohler from the AP NY photo library (who said this was a legitimate fair use over the phone). ALKIVAR™ 06:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jeff Widener directed me to Chuck Zohler from the AP NY photo library (who said this was a legitimate fair use over the phone). ALKIVAR™
- Nice find! Although short. Neutral Squash 02:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object - As a contributor who helped write a fair amount of this article:
- other sources say he was killed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests - "other sources" = weasel words. Who says this, exactly?
- The citation style is awful. It uses superscripts which point to footnotes which point to external links.
- It could use more information on other people who have been suggested to have been tank man.
- Also, since this article discusses Wang Weillin in depth, it would greatly benefit from an actual photograph of him. →Raul654 03:02, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I still think the article's title should be "Unknown Rebel", as it seems to be the more commonly accepted way of referring to him, and "Tank man" just sounds stupid. Other than that I have no preferences either way. -R. fiend 05:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, it's good enough for me, although I wish it was longer. Everyking 08:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The thing about short articles is that if they are truly comprehensive then the topic can't be all that notable, and if they are on very notable topics they can't be all that comprehensive. If this particular person / incident is truly important separate from the rest of the Tienanmen Square events of the time, I'm sure there has been more written about it that we can source (I'm thinking especially of international reaction, including sanctions etc, statements from international organizations and leading commentators). If not, and this incident only provides a striking visual to the Tienanmen Square uprising, it's mostly an interesting side note to the main event and not the stuff of FA in and of itself. The article as it is does not sustain itself. Another concern of mine is that the photo is copyrighted fair use -- my impression was that we as a community are uncomfortable with that status. Bantman 17:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The photo is a copyvio. "Fair use" does not mean reproducing any photo we want. Is is for the purposes of review? No. Is is an insignificant excerpt that will not harm the value of the original? No. So what are the grounds for fair use? GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I actually thought it was a kind of a photo review - at least as close to a review as we can get still keeping to an encyclopedia article. The fact is, the article would never exist without the photo - the article expands on the person in the photo and the reaction photo caused all around the world - so the photo is essential to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Then we need to get permission to reproduce this photo. You can't just say "we need this photo, therefore it must be fair use." GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Of course there is a quick work around for this, just find a TV news broadcast that used this image and get a screencapture, those are deemed fair use (due to reduction in quality) :) ALKIVAR™ 02:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Aren't all images of historical importance available under fairuse? This image may fall under this category. BrokenSegue 03:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No. Please read the Copyright FAQ. →Raul654 03:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) (Full disclosure - I am the author).
- Of course there is a quick work around for this, just find a TV news broadcast that used this image and get a screencapture, those are deemed fair use (due to reduction in quality) :) ALKIVAR™
- Then we need to get permission to reproduce this photo. You can't just say "we need this photo, therefore it must be fair use." GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I actually thought it was a kind of a photo review - at least as close to a review as we can get still keeping to an encyclopedia article. The fact is, the article would never exist without the photo - the article expands on the person in the photo and the reaction photo caused all around the world - so the photo is essential to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I suggest: to subtract (support - object) votes and nominate it as featured article in case it has the highest positive score from all other candidates. I suggest to keep the article in front page for 3 days if nominated otherwise keep it away from the featured article candidate list for 2 months. Minimum voters participation in this poll I suggest to be 12 in a 3 days period. Iasson 14:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, no - we'll treat this candidate just like we treat all the others. →Raul654 17:28, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Please see the RfC on this user as documentation of this voting behavior. Sorry, folks. hfool/Roast me 01:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, no - we'll treat this candidate just like we treat all the others. →Raul654 17:28, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. If this man is indeed one of the "100 most important people of the 20th century", it should be possible to write more than just 3/4 of my screen about him. Why was he so important, who did he influence, etc. One could start by adding in a bit more background on the Tiananmen Square protests. Jeronimo 08:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)