Talk:Tom Petty

And this is why...

...mainstream news and Wikipedia are crap. Tons of people now think it's absolutely confirmed that he died because CBS couldn't wait to get the unconfirmed news out and Wikipedia editors couldn't wait to add his alleged death to the article. 69.34.48.242 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but this isn't the place to complain about it. This page is for improving the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am improving things -- attempting to -- by raising awareness about this idiotic "We gotta be the first to report this event!"/"I gotta be the first to add this edit!" mentality. 69.34.48.242 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong: I agree with you about that mentality being annoying — as I've often said, including elsewhere on this very page and back in January when Rob Stewart's death was still up in the air for several days because his body hadn't been found yet, it's more important for us to get it right than it is for us to get it quick. But the problem is that it's not established Wikipedia editors who do this — it's anonymous IPs who often have no prior history of editing Wikipedia at all, and think they're helping. The established editors already know why it's not helpful. But the anons aren't people you can reach by lecturing the regulars — the only solution to that problem is moving to the "logged-in editors only" model, but there's never been a consensus for that...and it would also have prevented you from commenting. Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not improving anything, you're trolling and demonstrating what a stupid and intellectually dishonest person you are. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This comment is allowed to stay? For ELEVEN days? What happened to "no personal attacks?" 69.34.55.170 (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia carries exactly no blame in any of this. It's not our job to be investigative journalists who independently reverify whether any given news story is right or wrong; CBS and the LAPD fucked up and that's on them, the end. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it actually does carry a lot of blame. Many people undoubtedly still believe he's dead because of Wikipedia. 69.34.48.242 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, no. People who believe he's dead are doing so because of the conflicting media reports that were flying back and forth this afternoon, not because of us. Our job begins and ends at reflecting what reliable source media coverage says, not independently reinvestigating it ourselves — so if the media and the police screw up, it's not our job to take the blame. It wasn't our job to know any different than what the media were reporting, or to correct it until they did. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• yawn* Are you done with your tirade yet? It is not any Wikipedia editor's "fault"—the source of his death claim was TMZ, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only so good/informative/useful as the sources its editors have to employ (combined with the talents and wordsmithing of the editors themselves). The media erroneously reporter; Wiki editors followed, and they also promptly followed when it was retracted. You cannot, as the old adage goes, "shoot the messenger" here. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So, it's a form of "I was only doing my job!" Lame. 69.34.55.170 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, go ahead and enlighten us poor cretins about what the hell Wikipedia was ever supposed to do any differently than it did. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it actually does carry a lot of blame. -- No, you stupid pathetic troll, it doesn't. Many people undoubtedly still believe he's dead because of Wikipedia. -- cause does not imply blame, you cretin. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, all that complaining for not. Petty did in fact pass away on October 2, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* Oh, so since he died some time AFTER he was falsely reported as having died, then it's perfectly a-okay to allow this sort of thing to happen on Wikipedia? 69.34.55.170 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think people need to get accustomed to the fact that this sort of thing happens occasionally. Sometimes people tell the media things that are not correct, usually unintentionally, but either way it ends up in the media and has to be corrected. In the race to be first with news, it is inevitable that once in awhile some media outlet will report something when in retrospect, they should have waited to obtain further confirmation. Then it ends up in Wikipedia and has to be corrected. This is nothing new. Congresswoman Giffords was briefly "dead" on the day she was shot, both on the New York Times web site (and elsewhere) and then, briefly, on Wikipedia. James Brady was also "dead" for an hour or two on the day he was shot (I heard it on the car radio myself) and probably the only reason Wikipedia didn't pick it up was that Wikipedia did not exist then. And, although it is slightly different, I recall on the day of the Newtown CT shooting, listening to the radio and hearing all kinds of "facts" about the shooting that turned out to be incorrect and were corrected within a few hours. It happens. Neutron (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"It happens" is a poor excuse for [then] false material being added to a website that prides itself on being encyclopedic. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to come up with a new system regarding matters of this sort where the material is flagged as needing to be officially confirmed by primary sources (e.g. Petty's family or, say, legal representative) before it's made public. Honestly, can you imagine what could happen if Wikipedia posted material about someone that turned out to be a criminally defamatory lie? 69.34.55.170 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a citizen journalism project. It is not our role to investigate whether an ordinarily reliable source got a story wrong or not — if other media outlets report that the story was wrong, then we update the article to reflect that, but it is not our responsibility to second-guess the initial reports ourselves. And not just because it's not our job, but because we don't even have the fact-checking resources to even try to do that job. Even had somebody from Wikipedia personally called the hospital to check whether he was really dead or not, the hospital certainly wouldn't have told us anything — we don't have the right to pry into people's medical privacy like that. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 69.34.55.170's sentiment, but to be honest they should try being an admin and seeing it from the other side. "Perhaps Wikipedia needs to come up with a new system regarding matters of this sort where the material is flagged as needing to be officially confirmed by primary sources (e.g. Petty's family or, say, legal representative) before it's made public." We had a system, it was called Pending changes level 2 and was repeatedly rejected by the community, and is now retired. "Honestly, can you imagine what could happen if Wikipedia posted material about someone that turned out to be a criminally defamatory lie?" I certainly can, and so can WMF Legal who really do deal with just that - again, we had a system called Office actions for that purpose that is now pretty much deprecated. I did what I could here, including fully protecting the page, but if another admin reverts you, you are screwed (ask Yngvadottir about reversing a bad block of Eric Corbett some time). At the end of the day, I am not the King of Wikipedia and cannot force my views by executive fiat, even when I think they're right and am proven right afterwards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Which photo should be used? Pic 1 or Pic 2?

• 
  Pic 1
• 
  Pic 2

My vote is for pic 1 - it is slightly less recent, but it is far more descriptive of the subject - in Pic 2, it looks nothing like Petty, it looks like a zombie. There is no rule that the image must be the most recent - see George Harrison. In all senses, pic 1 is just a better picture. Thoughts? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer pic 1. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

While infobox images of well known people are kept as current as image suitability allows, once the person is deceased, the image is usually changed to one of the subject in their "hay-day". - FlightTime (open channel) 01:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. I think we should be clear on the criterion to judge a photo for the infobox.

I'd propose that crisp focus on the face of the subject is the most important criterion, and by that measure, Pic 2 is superior to Pic 1.

Other factors I would propose are how much of the subject's face is shown and whether the subject is looking at the viewer. Pic 2 shows the full face and has Tom looking directly at the viewer. Pic 1 is a 3/4th profile and has Tom looking away.

But if there are different criteria we should judge, I'm happy to listen and consider how to apply them to candidate photos.

Pic 2

Davidwbaker (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• With due respect, his face is very clearly not directly facing the camera in picture 2. Further, it looks like he is having a stroke. This article is not PR for Petty, but the picture should not be one where he looks uncharacteristically poorly. The picture should be a representation of how the subject looks- and I feel picture 1 is far more representative of how Petty actually looked.

If detail is more important, I wouldn't be against using

• 

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't say anything about crisp focus on the face of the subject, or how much of the face is shown, or whether the subject is looking at the viewer. It does say Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Based on this I think it's more important to show Tom Petty playing the guitar than to show a closeup of his face, because that's what our readers will expect to see. I like pic 1 because Petty is smiling, but I think either image is acceptable. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Manual of Style says "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works." That is, specifically, what I mean when I say crisp focus on a subject's face. Pic 1 is blurry on the subject's face, and thus fails the high-quality test. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Pic 1 is high quality, and you can't just conclude that it fails a test that you decided to select out of a compound, subjective, flexible standard. It comes down to what better represents the subject, and that is NOT image 2. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Look at the infobox pictures for Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan, for example. The subject isn't looking 'directly' into the camera in either. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd like to set objective standards here. Can we both agree that "high-quality" is one of those standards? As for "better represents," are you saying that smiling is necessary? So, high-quality and smiling? Davidwbaker (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please help me identify the objective criteria you're using to assess potential infobox images. So far, it looks like "high-quality" and "better represents." If you don't have time to do this now, I can revert your change until you have time to discuss.Davidwbaker (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I created this discussion to gauge consensus, and so far there are 2 in support of using the current picture, with you only opposing. I don't see anything objectively wrong with the current picture, and therefore it should remain. But for the record, there is nothing about smiling. Better represents means looks more like the individual. The other picture does not objectively resemble Petty, as far as I'm concerned. Don't take this personally, I just really think this current picture is better suited. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

One objective criteria that the current photo doesn't excel at is that it's blurry when viewed at its full resolution, especially on the face and hair. The criterion of "looks more like the individual" is rather subjective, but I can accept that.Davidwbaker (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)