Talk:Jessica Cisneros/Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jcisneros.png

Deletion request

 * Why is there an article about this person? She has lost every single election that she has run in.  She has never been elected to anything.  Also, she is not notable for other non-political reasons.  This article needs to be deleted.  --  2601:2C6:C080:4070:0:0:0:CB3B (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per sources in the article, the primary runoff election is not over due to the race not being called by the Associated Press and CBS News as well as the recount petition being filed, and the in-depth coverage of Cisneros over time supports WP:GNG notability, which is independent of whether or not she wins an election. Beccaynr (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability
Recount is over, She lost again. She does not meet requirements for an article. She has never been elected to anything and she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, there has never been a discussion about her article. Speedy delete applies --  2601:2C6:C080:4070:0:0:0:322F (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

From my view, these are examples of sources that help support WP:GNG notability: Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice list, but there have been tons of political candidates over the years who get tons of press, but ultimately they do not win elections. GNG provides a presumption, but it is not definitive.  Cisneros has not won an election that has led to her being seated for any political office, from dogcatcher to Congress.  We have not made exceptions for other non-winners (even if they get a ton of election coverage).  All of the articles provided are election coverage articles.  She has not been elected to any office and therefore she fails notability. --  2601:2C6:C080:4070:0:0:0:322F (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are unelected candidates who have articles when there is support for WP:GNG, e.g Articles for deletion/India Walton (2nd nomination) discusses these issues in greater depth. Beccaynr (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to nominate this article, they are free to do so. See WP:AFD for the procedures, if you do not already know them. Speedy deletion does not apply to this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Jessica Cisneros at GOTV Rally with Bernie Sanders (cropped).jpg

"out-of-date image"
In this edit, you removed this image with the comment "rm out-of-date image". All images are out of date the instant after the shutter clicks. That's not a reason for deletion. Similarly most the of the text content in the article is similarly out of date, right? We are an encyclopedia, we describe the past, not only the present. This image could certainly be better, but the problem is that we can only use images that are free to reuse and modify; WP:IUP. This is the only one I've found, and I'm reasonably experienced at finding them. If you can find a better one, please do. Until then, we should use the one we have. --GRuban (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I must agree that including a picture from her college years is not the best idea. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? We include text about her college years, about her birth, even. --GRuban (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any page in which a photo of a person from before they were notable is used in their infobox. I'm not talking about child actors or other notable young people, but fully-grown adults with a baby picture or high school yearbook photo in their infobox because nothing else is available. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, Suzanne Stiver Lie, just last month. But I think I see the point, you don't want the image in the infobox specifically? I'm OK with moving it to the section on her early life. Are you? --GRuban (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A WP:BLP has different considerations than the Suzanne Stiver Lie article, and I think it would be best to keep this image out of the article for now, because there is no contemporary image available and it may still have a misleading impact if it is in the article in the brief section about college, directly beneath the infobox. Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Emily's List has an excellent photo, found here. Also solid are the ones found at Democracy For America and Vox, but I'm no image expert. KidAd  •  SPEAK  01:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From my view, there seem to be WP:BLP and/or WP:NPOV issues related to including a nearly ten-year-old image that depicts a Congressional candidate who has a primary on May 24 as a college student. At a quick glance, the out-of-date image may be misleading to readers, because it depicts Cisneros as much younger than she is, and requires the reader to read the small-font caption to understand it is not a contemporary image. I do very much appreciate the effort to find and add an image, but in this instance, I think we should first find and add a contemporary image before other images are added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per WP:BLPIMAGE, Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. She looks like a baby in that photo, which I fear will have the effect that Beccaynr describes above. KidAd  •  SPEAK  00:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No good deed goes unpunished. OK, I wrote press@jessicacisnerosforcongress.com, hopefully they'll release one of their press images. If not, I still do think this image is better than nothing. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Reopening images question
The campaign team that I asked for a better image didn't write back, and the campaign is over, so they aren't likely to now. I'll try one more time. Here are the images we have.

I honestly think the first image is just better than the second. I think she actually looks better in it, but that's a judgment call; however it's hard to argue that the image is not simply more clear. Another option is to keep the second image in the infobox, and to put the third image in the Early life section since it illustrates the part of her being an intern for Cuellar, looks like BottleOfChocolateMilk tried that. Pinging recent editors. Opinions? --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a note, I opened a deletion request on the second image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessica Cisneros at GOTV Rally with Bernie Sanders.jpg. — twotwofourtysix (talk &#124;&#124; edits) 02:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would go with the 2022 image. The first is definitely better, but it's been long enough that she looks substantially different. I agree that the Cuellar/Cisneros image would work well for the early life section. HaileJones (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is a disparaging light per WP:BLPIMAGE and it is WP:UNDUE to include a picture of her in 2014, and WP:UNDUE to include an image during an internship with her later political opponent in two elections. The recent image seems most appropriate at this time per our policies, if it is appropriately licensed, because it is contemporary. The sources in the article also do not appear to support the amount of attention that the older images would provide if they appear anywhere in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , in your pings, you seem to have missed some recent editors to this article, and to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASS, it may be best to take this to a noticeboard, although I am not sure whether the WP:BLP or WP:NPOV noticeboard would be most appropriate, due to both policies being raised as concerns about these images. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I did miss a few people, not intentional. Now I'm pretty sure I've pinged every named editor who's edited the article during the last 50 revisions, almost a month. Beccaynr, if you really want you can ping the boards, but I don't think this is such a big deal that we need more than - what - ten now? - people discussing this image, but it is your call. I humbly disagree that the picture of her during her internship is in any way a disparaging light, she seems quite happy to be in the picture, as does Cuellar. I think the fact that she then ran against him adds to the value of the image, it doesn't take away from it - it's rather an interesting fact, to be honest. And it's also all we've got, especially if Twotwofourtysix succeeds in their deletion request. --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cisneros is an attorney and has twice run for Congress in close races with national prominence, and using an image that depicts her as much younger does not appear appropriate in a WP:BLP article, where Wikipedia must get the article right. That she may appear "quite happy" in 2014 does not appear to be strong support for how it now appears for Wikipedia to use an out-of-date image prominently to depict her. I do think it is a big deal to depict powerful women as much younger versions of themselves, while recognizing it is not your intent to create a false or misleading or disparaging impression. In addition, subjective feelings of how "good" she looks, or how her later candidacies may add value seem irrelevant to weighing what the sources and text of the article support per WP:UNDUE. From my view, it is sky-is-blue obvious that it is inappropriate to prominently use younger pictures of her in the ways proposed here, especially after the licensing issue is addressed and the contemporary image is (most likely) deleted. I realize you are proceeding in good faith, but I also hope you can consider how attempts to include these images may appear from the perspective of a female attorney and former Congressional candidate, including in the context of reporting about how her age and past internship were discussed during the campaigns. Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. However, regardless of how she looks the earlier image is of objectively better quality. You can hardly make out her features in the latter. HaileJones (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and it looks like the lower-resolution contemporary image has been cleared as properly licensed. From my view, the differences in image quality are not enough to overcome the BLP and NPOV concerns in the context of this article. Recent news offers an example of how this issue can generally manifest, e.g. Trump derides Jan. 6 committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson as ‘this girl’ in new rant (New York Daily News, June 30, 2022), and while I could review sources specific to this article to detail additional support for concerns, I would prefer to focus on other articles for now. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion seems to have died down, at two to one - however I'm going to follow Beccaynr's suggestion and take it to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for a hopefully more definitive conclusion. --GRuban (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Two to one" does not seem to be an accurate read of the discussion, and your characterization of my concerns does not appear to be accurately reflected in your BLP noticeboard post. I encourage you to consider posting a more neutral message. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It's not now that Firefanglefeathers has weighed in below. I did honestly try to do both, but you are welcome to more accurately voice your concerns either here or there, or both. Did I at least correctly follow your wishes is going to the BLP noticeboard? --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My hope had been that you would have either considered the policy-based concerns raised here and dropped the WP:STICK, or that you would have posted a neutral and brief description of the Talk discussion if you decided to seek additional input. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The YouTube screenshot has been deleted. I oppose including the 2014 image as the only image in the article, and I think the article will be fine un-illustrated while we wait for a modern, high-quality image. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So Becca and I met at the WP:BLPN, linked above, where two people said the image should be included, one said it should not be. But one was very insistent that we start an RfC to settle the issue, requesting it three times. So, here, ladies and gentlegnomes, it is, the much demanded, and hopefully final:
 * , this is not an accurate or complete reflection of the discussion, and I continue to ask you to consider striking your non-nuetral, incomplete, and inaccurate summaries. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on including image
Should either or both of the following images (they're basically the same image, one is a crop of the other), be included in the article Jessica Cisneros?


 * I think yes. Slight preference to both, but either will do, really. My arguments can be found both above, and at the BLPN, but basically Zaereth said it best at BLPN - this image is a thousand times better than no image. We are here to improve the article, not to act as Cisneros's PR agency. Now that doesn't mean we should harm her, we shouldn't, we should certainly try to find a middle ground between that and improving the article - but leaving information, this image, out either because she looks young in it, or because it draws too much attention to the fact that she ran twice against the guy she formerly interned for, is bending too far over backwards in a misguided attempt to improve her political career. We don't do that. Arguing that an image that was fine when it was taken, then becomes a BLP violation a few years later is ... let's say overstating the case. This is the image we have, and it is a fair one. If we get a better one, great: we worked hard to look for one, we asked her representatives, they didn't respond, we found another one, it was deleted; until we get a better one, it will do, and if we never get a better one, it will also do. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Use Neither - As discussed in the Talk discussions above, and at the BLPN Noticeboard. This is not an "attempt to improve her political career", it is an attempt to ensure we are carefully following WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policy. No one is suggesting "an image that was fine when it was taken, then becomes a BLP violation a few years later" - this is about these specific images in the context of this specific article. It is unclear if your request to her representatives made clear that you would attempt in multiple forums to find consensus against policy-based objections to an image from when she was 20 years old and one emphasizing her opponent if they did not provide a contemporary image, but perhaps you could clarify this in another request to them. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to write again, asking for a better image, but her campaign is over, so that campaign website may not be the best place to try. Do you have another suggestion as to where to reach out? I'm also less certain she knows or cares about our policies or procedures that much, and am reluctant to say "unless you do, we could use this other image", that sounds too much like we're trying to blackmail her, which is not my goal! If we use this image is will be because it is the best image we can get, not as a bargaining chip to get a better one, much though we may want one. To be honest, if she releases a better headshot, I think we should certainly put it in the infobox over the headshot crop, but still use the image of her internship with Cuellar in the appropriate section; it's both an interesting and highly relevant fact about her career. But it will be less urgent if we have another image of her, granted. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have discussed WP:NPOV and WP:WAW concerns related to emphasizing a small aspect of her career (per the sources and content in the article) that would occur if an image of her with her opponent during her college internship is included. I do not have contact information for Cisneros, and I am unable to speculate or know what Cisneros may think about the images, including if it is made clear that an image of her at age 20 could be the first result in any online search, particularly after what she experienced during her campaigns. There are examples posted at the BLPN noticeboard. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Notification was made about this RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Notifying one specific wikiproject without notifying the other interested wikiprojects both here and at BLPN is WP:VOTESTACKing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I carefully reviewed WP:CANVASS before posting my neutral messages, including WP:APPNOTE, e.g. An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You should re-review the part about "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion" given the focus of WiR in reducing systemic bias and your arguments about the impact of her image. You should also review the part in WP:INAPPNOTE about vote-banking aka "recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group". Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On this Talk page, the banner already included WiR, i.e. this article is of interest to the project. I did not selectively notify editors thought to have a predetermined POV or opinion, I notified a Wikiproject that is already interested in this article that also has a broad membership and diverse perspectives on a variety of subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article talk page section about a now-withdrawn RfC is a poor choice of venue for conduct dispute resolution. I urge that the matter be dropped, and if not, brought up at a user talk page per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE's "first step". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing RfC. I'm apparently not nearly as good at neutrally summarizing why as I think I am, so will just link. Apologies to RfC participants for wasting their time. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)