- File:Hugo Chávez (1992 Coup Surrender).jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This is a historic image in both senses outlined by WP:HISTORIC. It documents a historic event: Hugo Chávez's appearance on TV at the end of the failed 1992 coup attempt. But it is also an image that has iconic resonance in itself. It is the moment at which Chávez burst onto public consciousness: he is here seen giving the brief speech in which he said his efforts to transform the Venezuelan state were halted "for now" ("por ahora"). This phrase subsequently resonated in Venezuelan politics, and to some extent the country is still living with its consequences. This image is every bit as iconic as (say) the image of Chamberlain's coming down from the plane to announce "peace in our time." The argument used by damiens.rtf against the image is extraordinarily misleading. Moreover, the discussion's close is strange: three very brief "delete" votes (one of which was simply "per nom," the other of which was the--simply incorrect--"just a generic guy at a mic"), versus two much more passionately and lengthily argued "keep" votes. I think that the close was a mistake. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (And I see for what it's worth that the nominator has a history of rather acrimonious and controversial "carpet bombing" of FfDs. Here he seems to have taken an interest in a series of photographs of Hugo Chávez mostly uploaded by User:Caracas1830. But to delete this image is definitely going much too far. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- It is entirely appropriate, where one sees a problem across multiple images, to bring all of those images to FFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt that it is. But he seems unable or unwilling to distinguish between the various kinds of images that get caught up in his dragnet. That's what's makes his approach (to use another metaphor) similar to "carpet bombing." This has, in the past, caused annoyance and bafflement. It does today, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is different from the previous DRV because in the present case, there was sufficient participation at the FFD and there was a genuine consensus to delete there. Fastily could not have decided otherwise than as he did.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Consensus of the debate and strength of argument was read correctly. Nothing for DRV to do. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The strength of the argument? A misleading proposal in the first place, a "per nom," a factually incorrect statement ("generic guy") and then, as the strongest case, this: "I'd be hard pressed to make a case that the file could pass NFCC#8." Please! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the keepers could muster was "I think its notable", of a picture of a guy giving a press conference. The event may have been historic, but that doesn't necessarily confer historicity onto an image of the event. Put this image in front of 100 people and 99 of them will not have the slightest idea as to the context. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the fact that the event was historic is a start, and should have been taken into account. As to whether the image itself is iconic, you're showing your cultural blinders: put this image in front of 100 Venezuelans, indeed 100 Latin Americans, and they will instantly grasp its significance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute this. Do I have to take your word for how well-known this image is for Latin Americans, or can I read something about the image somewhere? Would you point me to such sources? --damiens.rf 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did, at the other discussion. Or open just about any book or article about Chávez. This is such an iconic image, it's hard to over-exagerrate. I'm somewhat shocked about the narrow-mindedness shown here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've given two sources over there, but just for you here's another one: "Chávez’s defiance in defeat in 1992 and his televised call to surrender por ahora (for now) made him a symbol of dignity and hope, a cause of public adulation, and the subject of a series of popular songs and poems. His military uniform and trademark red beret came to be associated with a break from the corrupt past and hope in a new dawn. They captured the imagination of many Venezuelans, and the red beret (and the color red in general) was transformed into a political statement, a symbol of the change ahead" (Zúquete "The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chávez" 110). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only part of the text that deals with his look is "...His military uniform and trademark red beret came to be associated...". Do we discuss his uniform-beret look in some article? Do we need this image to illustrate the text? --damiens.rf 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, the whole quotation is about his "televised call to surrender," which is what the image depicts, and the way in which it "made him a symbol of dignity and hope, a cause of public adulation." I dunno, Damiens, it doesn't seem to me that you are very interested in a discussion of the validity of this image. Your deletion proposals are misleading, then you ask for reliable sources, which I give you, and you fail to read them with care and attention. You point to WP:HISTORIC, which you also misread. Again, you seem to have a track record. It feels as though you are trolling, rather than making a serious attempt to think about how these images might advance the purposes of the encyclopedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that we have plenty of free images depicting Hugo Chavez wearing his uniform and a red beret, and we don't need to use a black and white non-free image to fulfill this job.
- Stop calling my nomination "misleading" on every post. This is annoying. --damiens.rf 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per the source given. It seems that how Chavez looked at the time is significant. (I am inclined to take jbmurray's word at face value without the source, because of his significant ethos from WP:MMM and his other related writings and projects) --Guerillero | My Talk 18:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per jbmurray's arguments. I am inclined to trust a Latin American scholar on how historically iconic an image is over a couple of short comments by editors who do not have as extensive experience with the subject matter. If the keeps have a stronger argument, then the image should be kept, simple as that. NW (Talk) 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too convinced by a "iconic for me but not for thee" argument. If we're going to muster an exception to NFCC for historical/iconic reasons, then it should be something more universally recognized as such and not just within a subset of the people of one region. Tarc (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, File:Ruby-shooting-oswald2.png could not be used in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article, as it would be iconic only to people who have studied Kennedy's assassination. Yet I don't see anyone clamoring to delete that picture, because as Westerners, we all recognize the iconicity of that photograph. I hardly think that most of us are familiar with what counts as an iconic photo in terms of Latin American history, and therefore we should be more deferential to people who know what they are talking about (systemic bias and all). If a professor of Latin American studies says asserts that it is widely considered to be an iconic photograph in the context of academic study of the region, then I think that is an argument that the closer should have given a great deal of weight to. NW (Talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would counter that the precise moment a presidential assassin was murdered caught on film has reverberations far beyond US borders. "Chavez in front of microphone" is no Che Guevara, though. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how many times I can repeat... this is not "Chávez in front of microphone." I agree that such images are two a penny. This is something else, as the sources I've offered show (and as was emphasized in the original discussion). As an aside, I'd note that you and Damiens are offering exactly the same argument as was offered against images on the Mohammed page: that images are never strictly necessary and that if there is some other principle at stake (either giving offence or, here, their non-free status), that over-rides any educational or pedagogic function the image may conceivably have. I hope to write this up in an appropriate place at some point, because this is really a strange situation to find ourselves in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you're wrong, there's no need to repeat at all. There is nothing gained by the reader from seeing a beret-wearing Hugo addressing reporters. And please don't troll this discussion by trying to tie this to Muhammad, this has nothing to do with the effort to fend off religious fundamentalism dictating image policy in the project. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about who is wrong. For instance, Chávez is here *not* addressing reporters. He is addressing his fellow coup-plotters. And the structural similarity with the Mohammed argument is striking: it's about when when other principles over-ride the educational project of the encyclopedia, and about the difficulty about arguing for image retention in the last instance. There's nothing trolling about pointing that out.
- Endorse. Accurate reading of discussion consensus. DRV is not AFD redux. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Agree with HW, an accurate assessment of the discussion. To the extent we're doing AFD redux, the deletion was also warranted: we can illustrate his trademark look using other free images, or just describe it with text. There is no need to use this particular nonfree image of Chavez. Even an important photo has to pass all of the NFCC, and this one is replaceable with text ("Hugo Chavez wore his trademark red beret and a military uniform when he announced...") or a free image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- undelete I think delete was a reasonable reading of that discussion (though perhaps NC would have been better). However, we now have sources that attest to the importance of the image and cause it to meet the NFCC. As I said, I think NC would have been a better close to begin with, so... Hobit (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – Again, notability does not override the non-free content policy. –MuZemike 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}