Talk:Jane Morgan

The Troubadours
The article link for "The Troubadours" goes to the article about a current UK band and should be fixed. I suggest someone should research the Kapp Records group that backed up Jane on "Fascination" (and are heard without Jane on the flip side of the original 45 doing "Fascination"), and also the late 20's group led by Hugo Frey which recorded numerous sides for Victor, both acoustic and Orthophonic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.229.129 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see your groups mentioned at Troubadour (disambiguation) either. Is there any chance you could be the "someone" who doea the research? I'd be happy to work with you to put the material in an appropriate article and sort out the naming. Franamax (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jane Morgan "Singing Style" section.
"... an elegant Juilliard sound"? With a link to the article on that music school? Does the music school acknowledge that sound ("with little sense of rhythm or beat"), and that Jane Morgan used it? Isn't a word of explanation in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOFL (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
This is the publicity image in question

Some time ago, after a diligent search, I added an image of Jane Morgan to the infobox, for the obvious reasons. Because there were no available free images images that conformed to our license, I used a publicity picture, and labelled the image with the proper rationale for using a publicity picture. (Here is a Google Image search showing that there are no images of Jane Morgan with a compatible license available: ) Now an editor has tagged the picture as not being compliant with NFCC #1 as being apicture of a living person, about whom it is presumed a free image can be found. However, because as explained above, in actuality there are no compatible free images, I have disputed the tagging.

So far, so good. The problem is that the editor who tagged the image removed it from the article, and, despite the fact that I have disputed the tagging, and that we are awaiting adjudication about who is correct about the usability of the article, the editor continues to remove it, on the theory (I guess) that once he has tagged it, there is no question that it is a violation and therefore must be removed. However, there has been no decision made concerning the status of the image, it remains available; the image can be removed from the article once (and if) it is deleted, but in the meantime, because the NFCC tagging has been disputed, it should remain in the article. After all, we don't delete articles after they've been tagged to be speedied or prodded or AfD'd, we wait for the outcome of that process to delete them. The same should be true here. The tagging of the image represents the opinion of a single editor that the image is non-compliant, and that is not sufficient to remove the image from the article. It must be confirmed by the result of the process, whether that is the decision of an admin, or the outcome of a community discussion.

Perhaps the editor believes that his word is law, and cannot be challenged, perhaps he believes that by removing it, the orphaning of the image from any article gives a second bite at the apple in getting it deleted, I don't know. But I do think that the editor should be told to have a little patience and await the outcome of the process that he started with the tagging of the image, and not presume that his judgment will automatically be upheld. Since he has done the same kind of thing for many, many other images, he should also be told to do a little WP:BEFORE-type investigation before he assumes that every image conforms to the presumption of NFCC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This borders on the facetious. BMK added a nonfree image to a BLP based on their inaccurate claim that the subject was deceased. Their "diligent search" misspells the subject's stage name and, rather than actually reviewing the set of available images, relies on other people's tagging. They also haven't bothered to search the scores (if not hundreds) of publicity photo and celebrity memorabilia listings at Ebay, which are a rich source of out-of-copyright free images. Their argument about "assuming" that a policy "presumption" holds makes no sense whatever: the whole point of a presumption is to presume that the statement is correct. The burden is always on the person who disputes the presumption to show good reason why it doesn't hold. And "I did a Google search and didn't see a free image" falls flat on its face. (Especially since that particular Google filter turns up mostly images already on Wikipedia. It doesn't do a particularly good job of that, either. I've uploaded hundreds of covers of Amazing Stories to Commons; there are more than 400 total uploads of such covers. The GSearch I just ran, using BMK's approach, misses more than 80% of them. Not something you can place confidence in). The general issue is being discussed at the NFC talk page, and so far there's no support for BMK's position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that she was deceased was a simple mistake, which I corrected myself once I noticed it. HW said in g=his last removal that discussion was running against my dispute of his claim.  Where is that discussion>  I cannot find any indication of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no basis for retaining the image. First, the idea that we can't seem to find a compatible license image at the moment is never a justification for retaining a non-free image. That argument has been used very frequently in the past, and it has always failed. The reason is quite simple; WP:NFCC #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis mine). Further, the Foundation has set out a policy regarding this. This policy (viewable here) states that the policy can not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... local policies of any Wikimedia project." It goes on to state we do not accept non-free imagery for "almost all portraits of living notable individuals" (again, emphasis mine). These policies ARE law so far as we editors are concerned, and barring a change in those policies they can not be challenged. The Foundation is quite clear about this. Jane Morgan is most emphatically alive. As now recognized by BMK, the rationale on image is false; the subject is alive. IF there were secondary sourced discussion regarding THIS particular image and therefore established notability of THIS image, then it could be included. That's not the case here. The image is being used purely for depiction purposes only, as stated on the image description page. There is no prose on the article discussing the image. It has no relevance to the article other than to depict the subject. This is a clear cut case; no FFD is required. This has been repeatedly established over the years. If you want to run it through FFD, fine, I've no problem with that. But the image as it stands is a clear cut WP:CSD case. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that edit warring in an attempt to remove/add this picture was flat wrong. Both of you breached WP:3RR. Both of you have been blocked for edit warring in the past. Both of you know better than to behave like this. The encyclopedia isn't going to come crashing down because the image is/is not on the article. The image has been on the project for over five years. We can afford to wait a few days with the image on/off the article while things are sorted out. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll just note for the record that the edit warring block on me you refer to was lifted by the blocking admin about an hour later (see User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 2), with an apology for the error. It (like this matter) involved removal of a clear NFCC violation.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The point being you're both well aware of the edit warring policy and well aware this was wholly unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for full protection of the Jane Morgan's article
Due to a fairly belligerent and completely useless edit war in the last few days, a request for full protection has been forwarded. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit
Please restore the infobox image File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg. As noted above, there has been no decision made as of yet whether it is in violation of NFCC #1, simply a claim of such by one editor, and a disputing of that claim by me. As noted above, a Google search shows that there are no available images of this person with licenses compatible with Wikipedia's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the edit that the edit war the page protection was supposed to stop is about, yeah? May be more advisable to discuss this with rather than to drag admins into the dispute. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * His position is unmoveable, his attitude dismissive, his arrogance supreme. What he does not have is the authority to keep the image removed when that removal is disputed.  Admins are here to deal with problems such as this.  I have stated a case for the image to be restored until such time as its status is determined, and have presented a prima facie case for the disputation of his tagging.  This, it seems to me, should be sufficient to have the image restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll note that another editor -- not myself -- removed HW's NFCC tag and my disputing tag from the photo in question, and suggested the issue go to FfD. Certainly in that case, the file should be restored to the article until there's a determination in that venue about deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All very well, but there's no impetus for HW to discuss further, since the article is protected without the image in it, which makes the image orphaned, which means it will be deleted in a week without HW lifting a finger. This systemic problem is an interesting one, in that as soon as any editor claims that an image is an NFCC violation, all the tools and presumptions are on that editor's side, and there's little or nothing an editor who disagrees with the tagging can do. This is unlike any other situation on Wikipedia I am aware of, even BLP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That it was protected has nothing to do with the image's status as a non-free file. The edit war is what caused the protection, not its copyright status. One thing has nothing to do with the other. For what its worth (see above), this is a cut and dry case of where a non-free image must be deleted. Whether it's deleted via F5 or F7 is immaterial. F5 actually benefits you as F7 under RFU wait period is only two days, as opposed to the seven days of F5. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you could convert the orfud to an ffd. I believe (not sure, but think) the bot honors that. Then you could have your discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have declined the deletion of the non-free image because there is a long-standing contentious difference in opinion on the interpretation of the policy in regards to living individuals who have been inactive for quite some time and have become recluse; this is not limited to just the two users above or this particular case. , I'm not quite seeing your justification for removing the image from the article when you've already tagged it for deletion. There is no policy to support your actions; in fact, it would be better to keep the image in the article to allow reviewing administrators to properly assess its use at the time it's tagged. At this point, you should nominated the file for deletion at WP:FFD if you seek to pursue it.

Additionally,, this page should not have been fully protected. The dispute is between two users only, and that should have led to both being blocked for edit warring. This page should be unprotected as long as both parties agree to cease reverting each other and continue dialog in a form that is not disruptive to the article. ℯ xplicit  00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence anywhere that Jane Morgan is recluse. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll happily unprotect the article once both parties agree to cease reverting each other and continue dialog in a form that is not disruptive to the article. As for the protection in the first place, I'd much rather two editors who ought to know better were put in the position where they had to discuss the issues rather than blocking them both (and probably compounding the issue further) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what prompted me requesting a protection rather than two blocks. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I don't believe the discussion(s) above correctly reflects NFC enforcement policy. I've been been editing in this area for a long time, and while policy enforcement has been contentious from time to time, we don't stop enforcing policy (especially local policy enforcing WMF resolutions) merely because a relatively small faction of editors dislikes it vociferously.

The first big blowup I encountered was almost seven years ago, and although the complaint was never formally closed, I believe that every admin who commented agreed that my removal of apparent NFCC violations conformed to policy and practice. "Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal". (User:Kww, then an admin)

NFCC enforcement policy hasn't changed materially, if at all, since then. The policy calls for removal of images that do not have valid article-specific use rationales. The policy is quite explicit in placing the burden of proof in NFCC disputes on those who support inclusion: "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This burden is underscored by the enforcement mechanism: a file without a valid rationale "that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria". (The emphasis on "will be deleted", indicating that deletion is mandatory, not discretionary, is on the policy page).

One key element here is that it's becoming increasingly common to see confusion over the applicable standards. I see, increasingly frequently, the claim that a nonfree image of a living person should be allowed in their biography because a free image cannot be located. This is a clear misstatement of the applicable policy/guideline standard. WP:NFC states that a nonfree image of a deceased person may be acceptable "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". This standard may be met, in some circumstances, by showing that a comprehensive and diligent search has not turned up any useable image. However, for living persons, the standard is more restrictive. Implementing a WMF resolution (and therefore not able to be made less restrictive by en-wiki consensus), the NFC guideline generally disallows nonfree images of living persons because "taking a new free picture as a replacement . . . is almost always considered possible". There really isn't any serious, substantive dispute about the meaning of this language. There is confusion between the standards for images of deceased persons (not "reasonably likely") and images of living persons (the much more restrictive not "possible"). But the fact that editors may incorrectly argue based on an incorrect standard is not a good reason, or even a sufficient reason, to avoid enforcing the correct standard.


 * So let's look at what happened here. BMK uploaded a nonfree image of a living person, with a rationale based on the incorrect claim that shew was dead. I removed it, since it lacked a valid use rationale.
 * BMK added the image back (several times), initially without even attempting to provide a valid use rationale. He eventually argued that a nonfree image could be used in this BLP "Because there were no available free images images that conformed to our license". This is an invalid argument, because it is based on the standards for images of deceased persons. I removed the image each time it was added back, and eventually tagged the image for deletion as replaceable fair use, so that an admin would quickly review the matter.
 * BMK disputed the rfu tag, saying that "A free replacement can not be found", but never addressing the correct standard, that it was possible for a free image to be taken.
 * reviewed the tagging and declined to remove the image, saying the matter was "overly contentious". This was, I believe, plain error. NFCC policy called for the image to be deleted unless the uploader provided a "convincing rationale" for its inclusion. As every third party who's looked at this has concluded, this is a "clear-cut" NFCC violation, there's no argument supporting the idea that BMK had provided a "convincing" rational. Per WP:NFCC. deletion was required, not subject to administrative discretion. (It was also "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", so it's disturbing to see the admin also saying that I should have been blocked, even though my removals fell squarely within the NFCC exemption under WP:3RR.
 * The amount of time and effort consumed in arguing a clear-cut case demonstrates why the NFCC policy sets strict burdens of proof. I've been systematically reviewing non-free image use in BLPs for about a month; only 1-2% of my actions. I believe this is the only one that's proved contentious. Yet despite being a clear-cur case, it's consumed more time than all the others combined. NFCC enforcement is already time-consuming and difficult; when policy, practice, and procedure are clear, there's no reason to engage in extended discussion of settled issues. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I agree with you regarding WP:NFCC#10c removals, there is not a clear consensus I'm aware of that establishes that is a clear exemption from 3RR to keep removing failures. In fact, I remember Betacommand running afoul of this very problem, and getting some very serious pushback on the issue. In the future, I would (1) remove, (2) if it's re-instated educate the editor in question regarding the NFCC policy and how it must be adhered to, and then (3) remove again. IF it gets put back again, take it to a noticeboard somewhere or even WT:NFC. Inform the editor of your actions on the noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Restarting the discussion
Is there some way in which we can reach a compromise about the use of this image, or find some other solution? If you do a plain old Google search for "Jane Morgan singer", there are many images out there, but if you use the "Usage rights" tool to narrow the search to images which are "labelled for reuse with modifications" (which is the closest equivalent to our CC-BY-SA), no images of Jane Morgan are left. The New York Public Library has one image of Morgan in its digital collection, to which they control the copyright, and it's not available on terms which are compatible with our license. The Library of Congress has no images of Morgan. Flickr has no images of Morgan. I've run out of places to look for a free image. You said in an early edit summary that it would take a "half-hour" to find a free image of Morgan -- where would you suggest I look to do that? Any advice you might have as to places to look would be welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a moot point now, but the edit summary you quote said more fully "there are so many photos, etc available on ebay that it's really unreasonable to believe you won't find a free image in less than half an hour". There are thousands of ebay-sourced publicity photos on Commons already. The problem isn't so much finding a free image, but in clearly demonstrating that it's free, for which you need: 1) an uncropped scan of the original image as distributed (some ebay sellers post reproductions, or crop off border text); 2) scans of both front and back of the image (both copyright and publication information was often placed on the back, and you need to show it was distributed without a copyright notice) and 3) evidence of authorized publication in the US at an appropriate date, usually before 1978 (the US was the primary jurisdiction that required a copyright notice; after 1977, it was possible to correct the omission of the notice, and after February 28, 1989, no notice was required). Circumstantial evidence isn't enough; photos can languish in archives for decades before being published. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo lied (a joke; bear with me). It didn't take a half hour to find a free license image of her. It took me about five minutes. See this. There are probably more. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, please don't be disingenuous. "A free photo of Jane Morgan" in this context obviously means "A free photo of Jane Morgan suitable for the infobo".  I found those pictures as well, and they're completely unusable - you know that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not being disingenuous. It is a valid picture. The image could be cropped, enhanced, and used at a suitable resolution. We have plenty of images in infoboxes that are of similar quality to what the result would have been. I'm sorry you don't see that, but in no way am I being disingenuous. Our policy precedents have clearly established that a lower quality free license image is eminently preferable over a higher quality non-free license image. As is, of course, it's a moot point. A free license, decent quality image of her has been found, thus voiding any arguments that we had to use a non-free image...which was my point in raising the image that I found. I did note there were probably more; I only spent five minutes looking. Indeed there were more, and now we can close this matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I will take your word that you were not being disingenuous. Perhaps you would take mine when I say that the image in question is not of a large enough resolution to do those things -- or if you'd like to see for yourself (actual size):
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I will restate what I said above; a lower quality free license image is eminently preferable over a higher quality non-free license image. I've seen attempts before by others where they tried to claim we had to use a non-free image because the free license image was of lesser, even poor quality. It never holds up. Let me be clear about that; it NEVER holds up. We are a free license project. In so far as humanly possible, we do not accept non-free imagery when free imagery is available or could be created. We just don't do it. So yes, the image you've uploaded and demonstrated here would very much be usable in the infobox in lieu of a non-free image if we had no other free license image of better quality. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think that image is "usable" then, indeed, we have absolutely nothing whatsoever to talk about. I would never make our encyclopedia look as cheap and amateurish as using that image would. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I would never want our free license project to include non-free content when free imagery exists or can be found. I respect that you disagree with me, but policy is clearly not on your side. I hope you will honor the policies here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly do, except when those policies become obstructive (and sometimes destructive) to building a great encyclopedia, then I follow the Ur-policy, WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which unequivocally states that their policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project". Even WP:IAR can not override it. Within that policy it also clearly states that we will not accept non-free images in almost every case for living individuals. If you believe that we should allow higher quality non-free images when only significantly lesser quality free images exist, you should start a discussion at WT:NFC. I don't believe in such an idea, and prefer upholding the Foundation's policy on the matter. Our discussion here is unlikely to change my mind nor yours. We're at an impasse, and one that frankly doesn't matter in this particular case since we now have a high quality free license image on the article. Further discussion on this subject here on this talk page is moot; we're not doing anything to contribute to building this particular article now. I will be happy to engage you on this subject at WT:NFC, but will make no further comments here. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, nothing more to be done here. See you around the quad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I found a PD photo of her and uploaded it here File:Jane_Morgan_Mike_Douglas_Show.jpg. Have also found a much larger copy of the photo which I'll also upload but it will need some touch ups from graphics (cheek & neck at right).  It can go into the article now if a willing admin will do the job-present top copy is just for use until graphics can work on the much larger copy. FWIW, I've had this bookmarked for a bit but didn't want to fuel the fire by simply uploading it. We hope (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great! Thanks! I saw that image in the Google search, but it did not survive the paring. I've cleaned up the current version, now I'll go and see if I can find an admin to add it to the article or remove the protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit (2)
Could an admin either drop the protection, since there's unlikely to be any further edit warring, or else add the PD image File:Jane_Morgan_Mike_Douglas_Show.jpg to the infobox? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've added the image. may want to comment on whether protection is still required &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)