Talk:Dan Lam

Infobox image
Please stop inserting an image into the Dan Lam article that is against WP policies. The wishes of the subject of an article are irrelevant. The policy on main images is at MOS:LEADIMAGE and says "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". Biography articles have portrait images of the subject. Also see MOS:SHOCK which says "Lead images should be of least shock value". Also see WP:OWN which says "Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." MB 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm putting the above message that was posted on PCs talk page here for reference. You both need to have a discussion here on the page's talk page about the issue. Both of you are also one revert away from violating the three revert rule, so please be aware of that. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I was asked to review this situation, I'm concluding that MB is in fact correct in his assessment of the info box lead image being inappropriate. I don't follow or agree with there being an issue of shock value. However, the critical component of a good lead image is that it serves as a means of confirming the subject of the article. The artwork in front of the artist wholly obstructs the subject making it impossible to identify who is in fact holding up the piece of art. We, on behalf of the collective reader, might not even know whose art that is, much less do we have the ability to confirm who it holding it. As such, now that there is a consensus I am removing the image. The image can be added back to the article, just not in the infobox. Adding back the image again to the infobox without a changing consensus should henceforth be considered vandalism and acting in bad faith. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was writing this summary of the discussion from my talk page, while the decision was being made. I am including it now for the record as I believe some arguments were not considered, and the decisions have been rushed. I hope this summary may lend impetus toward a different consensus. Thank you both for your time and work on this. To summarize some points from my talk page: this article is about a living person who is still producing her art. In a one hour podcast from over a year ago, the artist went into specific detail about the benefit to her work of remaining at least somewhat anonymous when visitors to her exhibits walk among her work. Specifically: her work is focused on the boundary and gradations between "desire and disgust" "attraction and repulsion" etc. Without patrons knowing she is the artist, she is able to observe their reactions, body language, facial expressions, and verbal exclamations. She also watches them occasionally attempt to break the rules, reaching out hands to touch, then either actually touching or pulling them back. This ability to observe and evaluate inspires her ongoing artist's journey. As the person who researched her thoroughly enough to create this page, I believe the Wikipedia policy on being extremely sensitive to living persons applied very appropriately here. While her face has been published, Wikipedia is such a go-to, widely available, top of the search page source, that I felt it obvious I should not include a portrait with her face. However, the portrait I did choose seemed like a stroke of great luck for this researcher: it captures the essence of the artist and her work in a single image, is professional quality, and is public domain. Although someone tried to remove it twice due to a rights issue, even though I reminded the editor that the rights were clear for Wikimedia Commons. Only then was I told the image must show the artist's face, and to look up the definition of the word "portrait." There are multiple definitions of the word, and particularly in the realm of art, obeying the spirit of the rule equals obeying the rule. This image makes the page complete, it does not take away from the reader experience in the slightest, does not omit facts, but supports them, has no "shock value", and respects the living person without doing completely unnecessary harm to her ability to continue producing her art the way that works according to her unique process. Lastly, had I known of the three-revert rule, I would not have come close to violating in. I think it makes complete sense as a rule, and before I read the warning, I did reach out to the editor to ask to open a dialogue and, if we could not reach agreement, to enter into any arbitration process, if Wikipedia has one. Thank you to anyone taking the time to read and contribute to this discussion.WriteIncunabula (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please excuse the double response. User, Sulfurboy, made his decision while I was typing my summary above. I continue to disagree with this it as even in an encyclopedic, journalistic reference, readers are smart enough to see that sometimes meaning is more precise because of a slight bit of abstraction. In other words, more meaning can be conveyed, rather than less (in this case: meaning embodied in the artist's process, as detailed above and researched from a primary published source). The image is actually an outstanding depiction of the artist and her work. It was published in an article about the artist, so it is not difficult to assess its validity, and the very fact that I can (and will) post the image elsewhere in the article makes it a bit nonsensical to not have the best possible portrait of the subject under the circumstances in the infobox. The page simply looks better with the portrait of the artist and her work in the infobox. If it weren't for the published interview in which the artist states exactly why not publishing her face widely has helped and continues to help the journey that is her work, I would agree with the decision to cut it. But, this is a special case, for the reasons mentioned here and immediately above in my previous summary, and I would ask editors to reconsider for the sake of making this wikipedia page as good as it ought to be. As is, I will not continue to get into an "edit war" and would not have continued one had I known the rule. I'm always happy to engage in discussion. Thank you again for your time. If editors view this discussion and reach a different consensus based upon these facts I would request that someone be kind enough to change it back: The picture of the artist holding her work is a perfect portrait, conveys exactly the best meaning all things considered, and should not be in the body, but in the side bar, in my (well-researched) opinion. : ) WriteIncunabula (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)