Jump to content

Talk:Tom Petty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Tom Petty/Archive 2) (bot
Line 21: Line 21:
|small=
|small=
}}
}}

== 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. [[Special:Contributions/69.34.48.242|69.34.48.242]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/69.34.48.242|69.34.48.242]] ([[User talk: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 (filmmaker)|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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[Special:Contributions/184.189.217.210|184.189.217.210]] ([[User talk: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?" [[Special:Contributions/69.34.55.170|69.34.55.170]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/69.34.48.242|69.34.48.242]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Drown Soda|Drown Soda]] ([[User talk:Drown Soda|talk]]) 04:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::So, it's a form of "I was only doing my job!" Lame. [[Special:Contributions/69.34.55.170|69.34.55.170]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[Special:Contributions/184.189.217.210|184.189.217.210]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/69.34.55.170|69.34.55.170]] ([[User talk: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 [[Gabrielle Giffords|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. [[User:Neutron|Neutron]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/69.34.55.170|69.34.55.170]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|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. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk: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. "{{xt|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 [[WP:PC2|Pending changes level 2]] and was repeatedly rejected by the community, and is now retired. "{{xt|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 [[WP:OFFICE|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. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 01:42, 9 November 2017

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

  • Pic 1
    Pic 1
  • Pic 2
    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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Petty&oldid=809430388"