Talk:Spike Cohen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

Both are not the best quality. Surely, in this age of cell phone cameras, someone can upload a high quality portrait mode snapshot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It looks like there's a campaign event happening soon near where I live. I'll see if I can drop by and get a picture. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, only Jorgensen will be there. We could use some better photos of her, too, though. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple similar images

@DickClarkMises: Two images is too many for an article of this length, especially when the images are of the same thing. The composition of the photos being different is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Each image must serve as an illustrative aid to help readers understand the article, and should be relevant, significant, and distinct. Too many images is distracting. Please see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and explain why you think having both images meets that guideline. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The images serve different purposes. One shows the subject's face for identification. The other shows a campaign scene, which serves the encyclopedic purpose of visually depicting the activity for which the subject is notable. The fact that we know the indiscernible background in the ID photo is similar to that in the second, wider shot is irrelevant. Please consider that WP:OWN may apply to your edits here, and consider WP:ROWN when reverting good faith edits without discussion. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@DickClarkMises: The infobox image is one of him campaigning. There is no additional encyclopedic value in having another angle of him doing the same thing in the same way. Furthermore, this article is far too short to have two images. You have tried to force your image in across multiple days without discussion. Per WP:BRD, you should have started a discussion after the addition of your image was first reverted. Do not baselessly accuse me of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. A mere 7.7% of this article was written by me: [1]. You have to discuss and gain a WP:CONSENSUS for your change. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, as the photographer of this image, please consider whether you're able to objectively assess its merits and add it in keeping with WP:NPOV. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to the substance of content and the POV presented. An image has no POV of its own. If WP:NPOV applied to the fact of having edited an article, it would eliminate the possibility of further good-faith contributions by a contributing Wikipedian, which obviously is an absurd result. As I pointed out, the fact that both images were taken at campaign events is irrelevant if you cannot tell that the context is a campaign event. The picture at issue shows the campaign bus clearly and shows readers context that is not visible in the headshot used for identification. And again, I would point out that your initial deletion was made without discussion. You should not revert good faith edits without discussion, and your edit was the first reversion related to this issue. Therefore you are the one who must stand-down until consensus is reached. There is nothing inherently controversial about this image, e.g., under WP:BLP, so you should wait for consensus before deleting content others have contributed in good faith and find useful. DickClarkMises (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@DickClarkMises: We can see that Cohen is campaigning in the infobox portrait. He's holding a microphone and there's a flag behind him. The setup is exactly the same as in your photo. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Having both distracts from the content of the article and doesn't provide additional understanding of who Spike Cohen is to the reader. I have left your image up for now, and I accept the suggestion of a WP:3O that you made on your talk page to help settle this content dispute. I have made a request for a third opinion: [2]. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the third opinion, I'd like to suggest a compromise that I believe addresses both of our concerns. I suggest we add one of these three photos by Gage Skidmore in place of your photo:

These photos allow us to see him in a campaign context, like you want, but show him campaigning in a different way than he is in the infobox portrait. Instead of having two photos of him speaking at the podium in front of the bus, we can have one of him doing that, and another of him interacting with supporters more casually. These photos are higher-resolution than the one you added, as well. I'm partial to the second one because it features the campaign signs prominently, but I'd be happy with any of these three. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)