Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Pics

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive includes all of the debate surrounding the various pictures in the aforementioned article. The discussions have been cut-and-pasted directly from their specific archives. If you wish to further comment on this issue, please post on the main talk page. Thank you. Bratsche talk random 21:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

First Picture
When you unprotect the article, I have the first picture of him as pope:




 * I would also include the official photo of His Holiness that the Vatican will take of him in the next few days, but move this to the article about his selection in the conclave. Zscout370 17:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)...

The page isn't protected (though it should be) and thanks for the photo. BTW was your adding the Hungarian interwiki link a hint that I should write the article? :) (there's no article in the Hungarian wiki about him yet :) Alensha 18:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Uhhh....if you want to think of it that way, then yes, go ahead and do the Hungarian page on him. BTW, I did not upload that photo, but I am just giving hints on where we can find a free use photo. Zscout370 18:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for motivating me, I wrote the article in H. wiki. :) BTW can someone make the photo be in the beginning of this article? I hate messing with templates. Alensha 18:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh, it's already there. Cool. This article changes faster than I can read. :) Alensha 18:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyright
(I'd have posted in the previous Image section, but as that has been duplicated several times I didn't want to get in the way of cleaning up). I don't think a Reuters image counts as fair use, though it's been tagged that way. Hopefully the current image can be replaced as quickly as possible with an actual fair use image, such as any official photograph the Vatican releases. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  21:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would wait a week or two for any official photos to be released by the Vatican. Zscout370 21:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio Images
I removed a slew of copyvio images from the article. Images from the Holy See would be preferable as a legitimate fair use claim can be made, ripping off AP and Reuters images from various web sites is not a legitimate fair use claim. --Wgfinley 02:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the AP and Reuters photos were used as place-holders until we can find fair use/free use images. I would check some blogs and see what we can find. Zscout370 02:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COPYVIO IMAGES
Please stop adding copyvio images from NEWS AGENCIES. Vatican pics are also cpyrighted, see http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_index_eng.html. &#8212;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   04:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Massive removal of pictures without any discussion is clearly not the way to go here. I also have seen a lot of other users stating Vatican released images are fair use.  I'm not an Admin, so will leave it to them to figure that out.  All the images taken out should be restored.  If this continues, an admin should protect the page. -Husnock 04:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been one picture released by the Vatican, that we could possiply use under free use. We cannot claim fair use for images from news agencies like Reuters, so images that fit into that category the have to be deleted.--nixie 04:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There are three templates for Roman Catholic images here: Image copyright tags. &rarr; Jarlaxle Artemis   04:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Pope Benedict XVI looks like a mummified version of Pope John Paul II. &rarr; Jarlaxle Artemis   04:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think i'm alone here, who thinks that Ratzinger looks evil and his features looks bunched together like a prune. Not very benedictine-looking.--Kvasir 05:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. While I've always thought Benedict XVI totally had the "evil cardinal" look going on, I'd have to argue that John Paul II looked far more corpsified. Kairos 10:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican should declare war on Italy. &rarr; Jarlaxle Artemis   04:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL with what? Some 400-men strong Swiss guards? Oh wait, they can always pray for God's miraculous help. --Kvasir 05:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At Last an Image
Since World War III seems to be going on about the Pope's picture, here is one that AT LAST should not ahve a problem with its copyright status.



This image was e-mailed out on the Navy.mil system. It is the photo which will be used by the Catholic Navy Chaplains. As created by the U.S. government, it is public domain. I wont put it into the article until its approved by others since we've had enough of that tonight. -Husnock 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Who e-mail it? You're sure it was created by the US gov?


 * Beware. The US government often uses texts, images etc. copyrighted by other sources, which it licenses. The mere fact that a photo was posted on a US Government mail system is not a proof that it is public domain as a work of the US government. I actually doubt that the US government had sent civil servants or military personnel just to take a photo of the new Pope; they most probably bought the picture from a press agency. David.Monniaux 11:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I raised this issue first in the post above you and I agree to most extents but I'd have to say it's quite easily possible they would have given that Bush is President

Copyvios
Apparently Cantus is insisting on inserting his various AP and Reuters images ripped off from various websites, removing the copyvio tags from those images and then putting them back in the article. Despite messages on the images and on his talk page he isn't discussing them so I encourage their continued removal. They are clear copyright violations. --Wgfinley 03:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite Annoying Indeed, Ive warned him twice, and fixed it 3 times.Rangeley 03:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ive reported this person on vandalism in progress. The user is also attacking legit images, changing the tags to say that they are the copyright violations.  Hopefully an admin will get involoved.  Ive left plenty of evidence on the vandal-in-progress page. -Husnock 04:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize if the picture I put back in of the young Ratzinger is copyrighted. I thought it was taken out as part of the continual editorializing additions.  Tell me if I am wrong, and I will not restore that image. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another followup to this. A lot of the questionable images had copyright tags changed to Vatican fair use after being questioned as copyright violations from Associated Press and so forth. It looks like users simply removed the copyvio tags (I wont name names). My understanding is that a user simply cannot go into an image or article marked for copyright problems and change it back without discussion or an admin clearning it. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:. My point...Admins need to check these images. A lot of them are very suspicious. -Husnock 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus now on the image war. Eventually I would like to see a better fair use or PD photo for the protrait but the credit to AP is proper on the image's page. I'm comfortable with the images in the article now that are Reuters or AP but taken as part of the Vatican pool so therefore we should be able to claim fair use with credit to the proper agency which I have taken care of. --Wgfinley 05:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we do think we should have photos of Ratzinger in his early days, I have done a Google search and found many things. As for his papal photos, I always keep on mentioning is that we should a few days and see what crops up on the Vatican website. However, I do agree that we are in an image war, either against copyright images or vandal images (like the Darth Vader one we saw yesterday). Zscout370 11:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Vote Called For
Which of these two images do people feel should be at the top of the article? They both now &#8220;appear&#8221; to be free of copyright infringements. Image:Pope Benedict XVI.jpg Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg


 * 1) My vote is for the second one.  You can see more of him and he seems to be in a better mood! No changes will be made until opinions are heard to avoid making people upset and causing edit wars -Husnock 06:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The second one as well, even though the pope looks like a dweeb in both pictures, he IS happier on the right-hand side.    &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 06:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Second I think it's a better image, hopefully we'll get something out of the Vatican soon that's better than both (there should be an official portrait released).  --Wgfinley 06:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) The second.  He seems less constipated.  (Can you say that about the pope?) WestonWyse 06:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Palpatine.jpg]] ALL THE WAY! Ok, actually #2 because he looks kinda happy.  Kinda.  I miss John Paul.  :-(
 * The resemblance is disturbing. --Paradigm 10:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for the calm discussion about this. I switched the photos.  I agree that when the Vatican puts out an official one, that should go in ASAP. -Husnock 07:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even though the dicussion is over, I also agree that the second photo is a better one, since we see more of the outfit the new pope wears and also he looks happier. The first one has him looking cold and stoned. Zscout370 11:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lock the picture
someone keep's changing it to the empire from starwars.
 * You cannot just lock the picture. Just keep watching and revert, --SqueakBox 18:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * You can lock the specific picture from it being changed, but someone can always upload a different one, under a new name and replace the original image on the article. Zscout370 19:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You can only lock articles, not individual pictures in an article. Anyway, I've banned 4 anonymous vandals in the last half hour from editing for 24 hours, so hopefully that might cut down on the vandalism for a while. -- Arwel 19:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good job Arwel! Zscout370 19:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Will SoM and Cantus please discuss which pictures are used where in this article HERE and STOP REVERTING THE ARTICLE OTHERWISE I WILL BAN BOTH OF YOU FOR VIOLATION OF THE 3 REVERT RULE. -- Arwel 20:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to sound a bit abrupt, but i've been watching this article for over an hour and seeing the main picture switch multiple time without any discussion between the headshot, the throne shot, via occasional views of Emperor Palpatine and Osama Bin Laden, and there are far too many vandal edits going on right now to have two of our more reputable editors playing silly games. -- Arwel 20:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to stop. Although I believe my set up is better. Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   20:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my last post on this page seems to have got lost (it's not even in the page history), but I've only changed that pic twice in total, although I've seen more changes that I haven't instigated (I've made more edits than that, but unless you count my restoring a | I accidently left out, none of them were actual reverts).


 * Like I said on Cantus' talk page though, the headshot just isn't a good picture, and (although I didn't say this there) the throne shot is somewhat more consistant with the portrait-pics of other popes until an official portrait of Benedict XVI is released. - SoM 20:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And /Archive04 agrees with me - SoM 20:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, holding a vote for a couple of hours in the middle of the night is hardly the way to come to a wide consensus! The world won't come to an end if you wait a few days for an official Vatican photo. Personally I prefer the headshot, but I'm prepared to wait... -- Arwel 20:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Palpatine.jpg]] RAWR! I'm not the one changing the pic to this on the front page, but I can do it here right? :p  Quasipalm 21:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this An Alright Picture?


I added a copywrite, as it is from AP. I am unsure if this is all that needs to be done, and if this picture cannot be in the article I will take it down. Rangeley 04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Caption: Police: "I've come to arrest you senator" Pope:  "Are you threatening me master jedi?" 168.243.218.6 04:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hah, that's exactly what I was thinking... Looks like he's being arrested. Quasipalm 06:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture Wars
Okay...hello everyone. Two days ago there was a nasty edit war about the picture on the front page of this article. I didnt think about it at the time, but there were certain violations of the Three revert rule. I might have been one of them, but who knows. Anyway- after all that happened, a vote was held to which at least 5 or 6 people responded. It was agreed that the "face front" picture wasnt very flattering and that another picture should be used. Since then, two more photos have been posted which looked good. NOW- the same photo that was removed tow days ago is back up on the front page Will this madness never end. I thbik there might be one or two users who keep on putting it up there, but ALOT of people have said they dont like it as the Pope looks rather cold and stern. I will not change it again to avoid another edit war. But, lets just agree on one picture and stick with it. In my opinion, the picture up there right now shouldn't be it. -Husnock 20:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Picture wars, picture wars, time to get your picture wars, time to get your crayon and your pencil! Picture wars, picture wars, fill your wars with picture wars, time to get Bill Cosby play your picture wars with you!" -I wrote it based on Picture Pages! -- by Anon

Fairuse
Do we really need half a dozen press photos of him? It rather weakens our claim for fair use if we're just building a gallery of AP images. ed g2s &bull;  talk  00:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we're waiting until official Vatican photos come out. At least, that's the case with the infobox photo: no promotional photo has been released yet. Bratsche talk  random 00:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Only one photo of him was released from the Vatican. Maybe we should use his cardinal photo in the info box until we get a free use one from the Vatican. BTW, I sent an email to the Pope, so I will see what he writes back. :) Zscout370 01:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using his cardinal photo in the info box. It would be nice if some wikipedia users could get/take some free license pictures however. I would take some, but I am kind of nowhere near Rome right now :p SenorAnderson 03:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I could use a trip to Rome myself. Imagine all of the flag spotting/hunting/buying I will be doing....(smack from reality). Ow, I do not have any cash though :(. (Seriously, try a Google search). Zscout370 03:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is an idea that I have http://www.markus.rausch-familie.de/kardinaele/Joseph%20Ratzinger.jpg (a photo and a signature). Zscout370 16:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Picture
Can't we use a different one in that box with all his details? His eyes look terrible, his appearance is awful, there must surely be some more appropriate pictures of him taken soon after he became Pope.

Yeah, we will change it, when they release the official picture tomorrow. Rangeley 22:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking about pictures, look at this one. Zscout370 00:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Has any official portrait been released yet (sitting on a throne etc.)? The ones shown surely cannot be official- they are not regal enough! There was a BBC programme on today, and showed many pictures I have not senn and am unable to find. I assume they will be released shortly.--'s-Gravenhage 19:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need to hurry with the pictures. He was only elected 5 days ago and inaugurated today. ;) --Maxl 19:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No official one yet, however this one is much better then that old one Rangeley 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine
OK, folks. The Palpatine picture is amusing, but inappropriate. I'm taking it down. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Popefelix 14:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images
The current image look terrible. Couldn't we find some nice images?
 * Until the Vatican becomes nice and gives us a few, or if Wikipedians go to Rome and take pictures themselve, we are stuck. Zscout370 18:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is sooo frustrating, AP and others have numerous good images, but we have none. Have somebody mailed the Vatican? Could we perhaps ask some news agencies for permission to use a couple of their images?
 * I want to email the Vatican myself, but it looks like I have no where to send my request to. Zscout370 18:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Try using the 'greetings' section on the Vatican website. Send a greeting to the Holy Father on benedictxvi@vatican.va, and ask very nicely for a pretty picture at the end. It probably won't work...but I might try it myself. --'s-Gravenhage 19:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually sent the Holy Father a greeting, but got nothing back. I will try the Vatican mission at the United Nations, but I will wait until finals are over at my place. Zscout370 19:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just take it easy! They receive thousands, if not millions, of mails these days. It may take some time until you receive an answer. ;) --Maxl 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I sent an email to the Vatican Press Office, asking when PD photos of B16 will be released. I am waiting for a reply in the next few days. Zscout370 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we don't need to hurry with the images. There's enough time to obtain them. (btw. I put that here before but it seems that my remark was deleted. I wonder why. --Maxl 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since he's very "in the news", many people want information on him (incl. images) now.
 * For that they can find lots of images in magazines, newspapers and on the web. I still say, we don't need to hurry. --Maxl 20:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But for here, we need Free Use/PD images, not steal anything from the AP or Reuters. Zscout370 20:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate ©opyright

Current Image
Is this image fully sourced properly? Cantus raised doubts, I clarified sources further, but If we are missing anything else we might as well fix it rather then go back to that terrible picture cantus keeps putting up where he looks half dead. Rangeley 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The image is from the AP (taken by Andrew Medichini). We are not allowed to use images from the AP in this article. Plus, this image was never given to the Vatican for republishing. So this image is a copyvio and must be removed from Wikipedia. Zscout370 02:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Picture
I thought we were going to get a new one after he had his mass of inaugaration. It's still the same horrible picture.
 * I know the picture sucks, but we do not have a PD photo yet. I have not heard word from the Vatican, yet. Zscout370 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)