Talk:Rachael Blake

Infobox photo
User:Commander Keane wrote on my talk page:
 * If you have some spare time could you start a discussion on Talk:Rachael Blake about using the current infobox photo, addressing the possible WP:BLP issue? I don't want to be reverting all the time to remove it, so a central discussion would be healthy in my opinion.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So, here I am starting the discussion per request. I obviously don't think there is a WP:BLP issue: when we can put a free licensed image of an article subject in an article we do so, and this image is an accurate representation of the article subject from an interview. It's a bit fuzzy, so I'd love a clearer one, but certainly better than not having an image at all; in its favor, it is a full face picture, she is facing the camera, and smiling. Commander, your floor. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks GRuban.
 * Regarding WP:BLP, it does say images should not be used in "situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed" - in this case I do not think it is reasonable for a screenshot from an old Youtube webcast to illustrate Google's second hit for Rachael Blake (our article).
 * I think the image quality is poor, it is insulting to the subject hence why 3 attempts have been made, including mine, to remove it.
 * Holding the subject to ransom/blackmail - ie "we will remove the ugly photo if you deliver a better free version" is in bad taste.
 * It is not a clear cut case by any means, obviously I would prefer the image to be removed.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite clear cut, actually.
 * Clearly she expected to be photographed, she's in a video interview, looking straight into the camera. WP:BLP does not say "where the subject did not expect the photo to be used on Wikipedia", if it did, we'd have to remove 75% of our images. We can't control where Google puts our article, all we can do is make it the best article we can, which doesn't mean not putting anything unless we can make it perfect, more below.
 * Yes, the image could be better, but that doesn't make it insulting. If you can make it better (with image editing, sharpening, or even picking a different frame from the interview), please do. (I spent a number of minutes looking for the best shot and cropping, it wasn't a random frame - but if you can find a better one, great.) Removing the image is not making it better. If merely three attempts at removing content meant we shouldn't have that content, all our best articles would be empty long ago; just watch the Recent Changes feed, I guarantee people with strong political feelings, vandals, edit warriors, and merely bored 10-year-olds are trying to delete multiple swathes of content as you are reading this now.
 * Accusations of blackmail are offensive, and should be withdrawn. Anyone can put in a better image version, we're not requiring that she do it. If you do it, great. I didn't make the rules that images have to be free. Neither did I make the rule that anyone can edit an article. The combination means that she can give us a free image, it does not mean she has to. Presumably it's easier for her since she can take such a photo at any given minute of a day, but we'd welcome a better picture from anyone, and we'd keep this picture even if she never contacted us, we don't have it here to force her to do anything. We have the picture here because it makes the article better.
 * In summary, you seem to think that WP:BLP says "making the article subject happy is more important than having the best possible article", which it doesn't. If it did, every BLP article would be a puff piece, leaving out every human failure and wrinkle. BLP actually says "We must get the article right." Having a picture of a person in any article about that person is far better than not; in an article about a film actress, especially so. It's hard to imagine how we could write the best possible article about a movie actor without a picture of them, what they look like is crucial to what they do. But neither does it mean we have only the best or we have nothing: "perfect is the enemy of good". This isn't a perfect picture, but it is a good picture, it shows what she looks like, clearly identifies her, if you have this picture you'd recognize her in the cast of a film or if you met her on the street. I don't even accept that it is an ugly photo; she is well dressed, combed, smiling, composed, she doesn't have her tongue sticking out, or something. She is 46 and looks it, yes, but that doesn't make the photo ugly, merely accurate, and the resolution on the photo could be better, but it's far from blurry. Removing it without a replacement would clearly make the article worse, not right. --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia includes the best photos of people that we can find under an appropriate license. If a subject doesn't like the photo, they can either a) provide one, or b) wait until someone has the opportunity to take a better one. Since when do we alter (legitimate) information because a celebrity's management doesn't "approve" (their words, not mine) of it? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)