Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.

El Señor Presidente

 * previous FAC withdrawn
 * peer review
 * Ext links

I am nominating this article on behalf of Mfreud, Katekonyk, Eecono, and Jbmurray, who have been working tirelessly on this article as part of the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project, an educational assignment. The students and their professor began the semester with this one-line article and they have created one of the best Spanish-language literature articles on Wikipedia in the past few months. Focusing on achieving FA status, they have worked to create a comprehensive, reliably-sourced, and well-written article and they have succeeded. They look forward to the reviewers' constructive criticism. Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Contributing editor. Based on the Featured article criteria,
 * 1(a) "Well-written" ...Pass.
 * 1(b) "Comprehensive" ...Pass
 * 1(c) Well sourced ....Pass
 * 1(d) I think it is neutral. I don't see any problems...Pass
 * 1(e) "Stable" No issues...Pass
 * 2(a) Lead is OK...Pass
 * 2(b) Layout seems to follow guidelines...Pass
 * 2(c) MoS citations OK...Pass
 * 3 Images I think are OK. ...Pass
 * 4 Doesn't seem too detailed and good overall coverage. OK length....Pass
 * I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator, copy editor, and reviewer. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. As Awadewit notes, I've been a major contributor to this article.  But I'd like to acknowledge that the research and the legwork has been done by Mfreud, Katekonyk, Eecono. Moreover, everyone involved in this has put in a tremendous amount of effort.  The Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project would like to extend particular thanks to The FA-Team for their tireless help and encouragement, with editors who until starting on this article had never before edited on wikipedia.  They've produced something that is, I think, really solid.  Undoubtedly the best source of information on this important novel to be found anywhere on the internet; and most likely the most comprehensive account of it to be found anywhere in English.  This article is a real service to the community, and to anyone interested in Latin American literature, and in significant novels of the twentieth-century as a whole.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I've been following this project since its early beginning and I've got nothing but praise for the students responsible for this article who wrote this rock-solid piece (that clearly satifies criteria) starting from scratch, for the editors of other MMM articles which are all going to be GAs and possibly FAs and for their professor Jbmurray who also put a lot of effort into this and ultimately made it all possible. Thank you for donating so much time to making this site better Acer (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm so excited and impressed to see this article at this stage (FAC) in such a short period of time. ¡Felicidades!  Perhaps there is hope for an academia/Wikipedia relationship after all?  As a nerdy academic librarian, I truly hope so. :)  This has my full support for work ethic alone, but one note on the prose: there is a small problem with run-on and/or overly long sentences here and there.  A few examples would be A landmark text in Latin American literature, El Señor Presidente explores the nature of political dictatorship and its effects on society and makes early use of a literary technique that would come to be known as magic realism. in the lead and Though El Señor Presidente was written in France and is set in an unnamed Latin American country, governed by an unnamed President at some time in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, as critic Jack Himelblau explains, "Asturias [...] wrote his novel primarily with his compatriots in mind, who, undoubtedly, had lived through the tyranny of Estrada Cabrera from 1898 to 1920." in the first section.  In need of another quick copy-edit, perhaps?  I trust the FA Team knows what to do.  Other than that, fantastic job, everyone; I truly hope to see a few of the other project's articles here in the coming week. María ( habla  con migo ) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maria, the FA-Team is a stretched a bit thin at the moment. If you could possibly take the time to read through the article and identify these sentences on the talk page or fix them yourself, we would be ever so grateful! Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the above two sentences and hopefully it sounds better. Thanks for pointing them out.--Katekonyk (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Per above comment by . Agree that article is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-written.  I have only one comment: would it be possible for someone to turn the redlinks to blue?  Doesn't hold up supporting for me, but I see (7) potential DYKs in there...  Cirt (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just cut a couple of these redlinks. The others look as though they could conceivably become articles at some point: there is for instance an (incomplete) French Wikipedia page on the Prix du Meilleur livre étranger; and the directors and actors look, if not massively important, arguably notable enough for an article; likewise Losada.  But we could cut some of these if that should turn out to be the consensus.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I created stubs for all but two redlinks due to lack of information online.. Acer (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are not a bad thing and are not a valid reason for an oppose, unless the lack of an article impacts upon the comprehensiveness of this article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE
 * All other links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done I've fixed the one instance of this that I could find.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; Brilliant work.  Maxim (talk)  23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not a fan of listing every citation in both the notes section and the references section. In many of the FAs I've seen, it is customary to only include general references in the References section (i.e. books and major journal articles completely devoted to the subject), while listing newspaper articles, minor journal articles, and citations for books in which the article subject is mentioned but not the main focus, only within the notes section. For an excellent example of what I'm talking about, please look at the notes and references sections of the Emma Goldman article. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there are lots of different conventions. I'm opening to hearing other thoughts, pro and con.  I should say I personally much prefer this way of presenting things (well, I think I prefer even more using the "Harvnb" templates the way we have at Mario Vargas Llosa, for instance, but it's the same rough idea), but then that's what I'm used to: it essentially mimics most academic styles (MLA, author-date) in the Humanities and Social Sciences.  But as I say, speaking for myself I am certainly open to other perspectives.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I like it. It mimics MLA very closely. It's the way the article would be cited in the real academic world. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the article is internally consistent - that's all we need for FA. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The citation style is fine. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question - in the first sentence "...by Guatemalan Nobel Prize-winning writer..." should there be a comma after 'Guatemalan'? It kind of sounds like the Nobel Prize is Guatemalan. --maclean 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - A good bit of work. I've left a few comments on some minor points on the talk page (and if you cut the redlinks I'll withdraw my support). Yomangani talk 01:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, as a (minor) contributor; I did some copyediting but had nothing to do with the content. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Rather good. I liked the way ideas like magic realism were actually explained for once. So much better than just the usual link to a frequently not wholly relevant link. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has now been fixed (albeit not with a comma, but by changing the order). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Quality article, quality references, very informative. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Image issues
 * Oppose: Multiple criterion three concerns not resolved since previous FAC:
 * Why are two book covers used? WP:NFCC#3A requires “Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary”.  If the first edition version is particularly important (per talk page comments), why is that not used.  Why is Image:El senor presidente.gif necessary in the presence of the other?
 * Image:Asturias.jpg – how does seeing the author significantly contribute to our understanding (NFCC#8) of this novel? What understanding would be lost without it (i.e. how would the article be “impoverished”, per the FUR).  Importance to the novel and importance to our understanding are two distinct notions.  The former alone is not sufficient to employ FU images.
 * Image:Juan jose arevalo1.jpg how does the image of Arévalo help us to understand (significantly, or at all, for that matter - NFCC#8 and NFCC#3A) his democracy or its/his influence on the novel? It appears to be used solely as eye candy.  It certainly does not fulfill its purpose of “contrast[ing] the leader who restricted the publication”.  Where is the contrast? An image tells us nothing of political, social, philosophical, etc. views.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, obviously at the previous FAC there wasn't much time to go into these issues. And you'll see that the permissions have been fixed since then.  But I also asked a series of questions about your objections on the article talk page.  Frankly, if you were to take a very strict criterion, I'm not sure how any image on almost any literature article (or indeed 97% of wikipedia's other articles) "significantly contribute[s]" to our understanding of that work.  Why include a book cover at all?  If that's your position, then so be it, of course.
 * I'd have thought, however, that being able to visualize these figures is of some help for understanding the text. It helps us root our reading of the text in the real world events to which they refer (in rather the complex way that the article itself details), as well as helping visualize some key aspects of the novel's context and production.
 * But yes, I'd be hard put to say that these images are essential. But then I'd be hard put to say an image of (say) Arévalo on Arévalo's own page is essential.  Why do we tend to think that even biographical articles need images?
 * These are genuine questions, and I'd be interested in your responses.
 * Regarding the two covers: one is of the English (the first US translation, if not necessary the first edition cover); the other is of the first edition of the definitive text in Spanish. Like any other translated book, in some sense this is a doubled work.  I'd have thought that if one cover was appropriate, then so are two.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to note what the U.S. Copyright Office says about Fair Use which includes this factor: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." A promo image of a book's cover would seem to benefit both author and publisher, and is unlikely to negatively affect the potential market value of the book. But maybe it would? Anyway, the link is provided for the benefit of the whole. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Impact on profitability is but one of 10 criteria for inclusion (there are more, if you count sub-criteria), all of which must be satisfied. Wiki policy is deliberately more restrictive than U.S. Fair Use law.  We are not considering law; these are policy concerns.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * @jbmurray: Please remember that these criteria are only applicable to non-free images. Free and “free enough” images have no such thresholds.  Responses here need to focus on the images in this article and their adherence to policy, or lack thereof.  I appreciate the desire to understand applicability to other Wiki articles, but that is a discussion we’d need to have elsewhere (and I’d be happy to do so, by the way).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to support Jbmurray's reasoning on the book covers. Unless there must be an aesthetic discussion of the book cover (which Elcobbola denied in a previous discussion), I see these as two important versions of the book and worth highlighting - remember this article is about the book, therefore visually telling the history of the book is educational. I think that the other two portraits add value to the article - they are of important figures in the book's history. Whether that value is significant or not is debatable - what is the exact definition of "significant" in this context? Awadewit (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What educational value is provided by two book covers? Altering a cover's artwork for a translated version is neither rare nor profound.  If you're going to claim the importance of the visual progression, then there would be an need for the aesthetic discussion.  I understand that the original version has particular significance.  What, then, does the English version tell us about the novel?  What story is told?  Why was that image chosen, why was the old one discarded, what does the new one represent?  If there is indeed importance to seeing the cover evolution (which neither the article nor FURs discuss), that would seem to indicate that the article is not comprehensive.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) ЭLСОВВОLД, apologies if I seem to be sparking off a more general discussion. In part I am, I suppose. But I should say that this is the first FAC I've really followed, so I ask you for a little patience if I seem to be seeking that you reinvent the wheel on my behalf. Again, it does seem to me that a strict interpretation of the notion of "significant contribution to our understanding" would mean that articles on books were on the whole devoid of (non-free) images. For the sake of time, for the moment, let me just address the cover image. Despite the above, there does seem to be a precedent that (at least) one book cover is justified for such an article. As this is a translated book, and as this is the English wikipedia, and as therefore all references to the text are to the translation, the cover that we've put in the top right hand corner is of the translation. It's the earliest translation cover we can find, of a reprint of the first US edition. (NB the infobox is serially confusing as it mainly details the first [Mexican] publication, which inter alia seems to suggest therefore at first glance that this is a Mexican novel; but let's stick to images just at the moment, and deal with the constraints of the infobox template elsewhere, if necessary.) However, given that this is a translated book, it was first published in Spanish. It would seem appropriate therefore to include an image of the Spanish publication. Or at least as appropriate as it is to include an image of the translation cover. So we have an image of that cover. What's more, as the novel has a slightly complicated publication history, we have an image of the first edition of the definitive text. (As detailed in the article itself.) OK, then, just a word or two about the other images. What would really make sense would be to have an image of Estrada Cabrera. There was such an image on the page earlier, but that got deleted. Honestly, I have no idea why, as surely it has to be out of copyright. (It was a photographic image, and the chappie's been dead for over eighty years now.) We had a discussion about that here. Your opinions would be most welcome on that matter. Many thanks, and apologies for the bother. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bola, this does seem to be a subjective and unnecessarily strict interpretation of policy. It seems incredibly reasonable to think that a photo of the author is much more than mere "eye candy". Wrad (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said the author was eye candy. Please read my comments critically.  I've asked questions based in policy.  Your comment makes an assertion without providing the underlying reasoning.  I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the inclusion of these images.  Merely saying something seems reasonable is insufficient.   ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what you said: "Image:Asturias.jpg – how does seeing the author significantly contribute to our understanding (NFCC#8) of this novel? What understanding would be lost without it (i.e. how would the article be “impoverished”, per the FUR). Importance to the novel and importance to our understanding are two distinct notions. The former alone is not sufficient to employ FU images." I fail to see how you can say an image of the author is unimportant to the novel. He wrote the novel! He's more important to the novel than any other person on earth. This is what he looks like. This seems very important to me. Wrad (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And "eye candy" is where in that quote, exactly? Importance to the novel is not a criterion. Importance to our understanding is.   ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to understanding the novel and who wrote it. You don't. This is all very subjective. One man's trash is anther man's treasure. I think your interpretation of the usefulness of the image is unnecessarily strict. You'll probably say that I need to provide some kind of evidence. I think it is ridiculous to even think that an image of the author is unimportant to understanding the novel. It shows us who the guy is. Wrad (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to have to with Wrad here - I think we can say that an image of the author of the novel under discussion significantly increases understanding. If it doesn't, then no fair-use portrait ever increases understanding, unless it is of someone with a distinctive physical attribute. In my opinion, that is much too restrictive. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misquoted you, Elcobola. I'm just not as familiar with the fine print of images as you are, so I didn't see any distinction between "eye candy" and the other claims you made. Wrad (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; it happens. I write rather deliberately, so I really push for folks to read carefully.  It may aid the discussion to note, for example, that I have not asserted that the images need to be removed or even that they are in unambiguous violation of policy.  I have a particular interpretation and have simply posed questions which, if answered to my satisfaction, would resolve the concerns.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That seems to be hyperbole. Fair Use portraits are absolutely acceptable in articles about the subject of the portrait; I am, after all, not debating use in Miguel Ángel Asturias. We can ignore the “significantly” verbiage for the moment; why is seeing that image important to me, the reader, in terms of understanding the novel? Yes, it illustrates the author; so what? This is an article about the man’s work, not the man. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as a literary critic, I find it very important to know as much as I can about the author in order to understand his works. This includes his physical appearance. People coming from other viewpoints may not see that as significant, but literary critics would. Wrad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(← ec) There is a long history of (occasionally heated) debate on how strict Wikipedia's non-free content criteria should be, and hence how strictly the current criteria should be interpreted. It is therefore important to approach the subject calmly and flexibly, and acknowledge differing viewpoints may be equally valid. ElCobbola raises entirely reasonably questions about three types of non-free image that occur in this article: book covers, the author, and a person related to the novel's publication. Jbmurray raises sensible queries about the interpretation of the non-free content criteria for articles about novels.

I would like to make two general observations, and then discuss them in this case.
 * 1) Subject to the the five pillars, policies and guidelines are intended to reflect consensus. Pillar five, as expressed in WP:IAR, reminds us that the main goal is improving the encyclopedia. Of course, no article may contain copyright violations (Pillar three), but stricter criteria only exist to the extent that they benefit the encyclopedia and are supported by consensus. I am a strong believer in such stricter criteria, but they must be interpreted in the light of consensus, so it is relevant to consider what the consensus interpretation is for articles on novels.
 * 2) One of the most subjective of the criteria is NFCC#8 on "significance". Here I want to note that the criterion recommends that non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" [my emphasis]. For articles on novels, this is not the same as saying it should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the novel", as the topic of an article on a novel covers more than the novel itself: context, authorship, publication, reception all play an important role. Also, not only does "significance" require interpretation, but also "readers" does: does this mean "more than one reader", "many readers", "most readers" or "all readers"? The solution to these ambiguities is not wikilawyering, but consensus.

So, how do we combine these observations here? I believe there is consensus that almost all articles on books (or any other publication, such as a film or computer game) can include at least one non-free fair use cover image. Why is there such consensus? There are multiple reasons one could put forward: it surely helps many readers recognise the topic of the article if they see a familiar book cover; it also provides insight into how the book was marketed and perceived. If such reasons support one image, they may support more than one image, provided the justification is correspondingly stronger.

I am less sure what the consensus is about non-free images of authors, but I do believe it improves the encyclopedia for this article to have an image of the author: the image is clearly fair-use, and putting a face to the name will enhance the experience of the article for many readers. I don't see any case for the image of Juan Jose Arevalo. If no such case can be made, I suggest seeking a free alternative, or removing the image. Geometry guy 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Being one of the principle editors/contributors to this page, I will try my best to explain the reasoning behind the image of Juan Jose Arevalo. I readily admit that I am new to Wikipedia, this is my first experiance editing anything on the internet and as such it follows that I feel completely overwhelmed by this current discussion. That said, as an undergraduate university student, who actively uses wikipedia for reference checks of people, novels and historial events, I find images extremly valuable. Many people, especially in such a digital age, are very visual learners. As such, I find images of the book cover important for quick recognition that I have found the right source to consult. Images for me personally, help me identify with the text and place the text in context. For many people the saying "putting a face to the name" is a very helpful memory tool as it helps the reader learn and retain information. For this reason we have included an image of the author, the book cover and also Jose Juan Alvero. I understand that my reasoning for including these photos may not align with the rules of Wikipedia but I think at the end of the day what should be included in the article are things that are going to help the reader and I find an article of almost all text does not. I personally place a lot of importance of images and I am more likely to stay interested in the presented information if it is infused with visual aids, such as photos of real people discussed in the article that have been related to the novel. Inserting a photo of Asturias when discussing the background/inspiration for the novel and including images of Jose Alvearo when speaking about how he is realed to Asturia's depiction of the President I find to be a very powerful source of explaination. In no words, this image gives the reader a visual connection to the real-life dictator often assoicated with the portrayal of Asturias's president. I know this is all just my opinion and I don't know if this helps clarify this issue but I have given it a shot. I am at a loss as to what I can do to solve this issue. I'm sorry these issues were not satisfactorily resolved since last time. If you consult the archives of the talk page you will find a detailed discussion and attempt to resolve these issues. We did not by any means ignore them but I guess did not have the right kind of experianced help with images that we needed to resolve these issues. For that reason I do hope ЭLСОВВОLД, that you will reconsider your opposition to our article. I think that your points are fair and valid and if these issues have not been properly adressed they certainly should be. At the same time I don't feel that I or the other editors that have tried to resolve these image issues are perhaps capable of fixing them correctly. At that I ask that if you have some spare time we would really appreciate some help solving the issues that you find should keep this article from reaching FA Status. --Mfreud (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Confounding. Either I'm confounded or there are several confounding issues with the little pictures. Can we have all the images we want as long as they have no potential copy right issues, correct? In other words, there is an issue of copyright / fair use and no issue about the appropriateness of images, correct? That is my understanding. If one has an artistic streak, drawing a portrait from a montage of sources (not just one:not a copy) would create an original image free of copyright concerns. This could not be done (so simply) with the book cover. On the other hand, is there an objection to the images per se regardless of ownership rights? I don't see why. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright isn't the issue being discussed. Wikipedia policy is. Apparently there is a big difference, although you're right that there is no copyvio going on here. Wrad (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Sandy Georgia (Talk)


 * G guy makes a good case on Arevalo. Mfreud, don't be frustrated; this is an area few of us understand well.  Cobbola, can't the two book covers be solved by researching and discussing the images on the book covers?  Why two different images for the different translations?  What do they represent?  Why wasn't the same image used on each the translation.  And why on Earth was it published in Argentina, anyway?  Wouldn't a discussion of the actual covers allow both covers to be used because then the images would significantly increase our understanding ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that this topic, called "history of the book", is vastly understudied. The chances that there is research on it for a particular text are slim. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only time I've ever seen research on it is with the Harry Potter series. Wrad (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I have actually made gestures in that direction myself, regarding a text not a million miles away from Harry Potter in quality.  But that there link won't take you to no reliable source.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * @Sandy: A discussion along those lines is precisely what I'd like to see to support the use of both images. One cover is indeed appropriate, as has been said, to facilitate  identification; two covers, however, need the support of prose identifying and discussing the importance/significance/etc. of the differences/alterations/etc.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the other principle contributors and I have combed the archives of university and city libraries as well as the internet for neutral reliable sources that pertained to this novel numerous times and I have also consulted research librarians on how to find the more rare and obscure literature, reviews and general information on El Senor Presidente on several occasions and we have not been able to find any discussion of the reasoning behind the images on the book covers. Im not sure that a discussion of the images on the book covers could be well sourced. I do have an intermediate level of Spanish but even within those search peramiters I have not been able to find any discussion of the images on the book covers. I can see how this would be very helpful to have but I am unsure that such a scholarly or neutral study has been done as this book, though well known, has not lately topped best-seller lists the way novels such as Harry Potter have of late. Is there anything that I can do then to try to resolve this issue? Or should I leave it to yourself, SandyGeorgia, and other more experianced editors like elcobbola who have identified the problem and are able to work out an acheiveable solution? Please let us know so we can work to resolve this issues as soon as possible.--Mfreud (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This gets to principle problem; the absence of such scholarship is indicative of the relative unimportance of the covers. As G-Guy said, there's Wiki consensus (with which I agree) that one cover is acceptable for aforementioned reasons.  If one wants to include two covers, however, NFCC#3A and #8 come into play.  The result is that each cover must do  more than just identify the subject.  As there's no reliable information supporting the enhanced roles, so to speak, I don't see the case for both.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Small point: I would like to point out that just because there isn't research on something doesn't mean it isn't important. For a long time, there wasn't any significant research on women novelists in the eighteenth century - they weren't viewed as important as their male colleagues until feminist literary criticism. Now that kind of imabalance is being rectified, but much work remains to be done. Scholarship is an ongoing process - there is still much work to do. We should be careful before we deem something "unimportant" because it hasn't been studied.
 * "Relatively unimportant" is not "unimportant". Sexism is a quite a different issue and, I think, an inappropriate analogue.  Is there really a reasonable expectation that the book covers will be discussed?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is every expectation that book covers will be discussed in the future. Why wouldn't they be? They are an integral part of the book. History of the book is one of those fields that is wide open - there is a lot of scholarship to do there. In children's literature, for example, a lot of work is being on picturebooks and pop-up books. The Bible has attracted a lot of attention on this front. Note that these are the obvious choices to begin with. Even more importantly, why wouldn't Jbmurray start to put together something based on the ideas in his blog post, slowly building to a conference paper, then a journal article, and then a book? The definitive work on Latin American publishing techniques? Nothing should be ruled out. :) We are not in the business of predicting the future - of predicting what scholarship will and will not be done. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Larger point: I find the arguments for including the two covers convincing (as I outlined above). I don't think we have to have to scholarship saying the images are important - I think we have to have reasonable arguments. Several of those have been provided and many of us have agreed with them. As has been pointed out numerous times, fair use rationales are subjective. More people agree with retaining the book covers and the author portraits and have provided cogent reasons for doing so than oppose getting rid of them. At some point, Raul654 is going to have decide which argument is more convincing. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments thus far are really only WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR. The latter is fine, but it needs the accompaniment of sound reasoning (i.e. not WP:ILIKEIT) regarding the detriment to Wikipedia in its absence.  The importance of literature is in the words of the author, not the materials that bind them and the images thereon.  Saying the third edition is the “most important” refers to prose therein, not a cover.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments are better than this - you just don't find them convincing. That's fine. However, don't accuse the rest of us of making irrational arguments (ILIKEIT). Moreover, the importance of literature goes way beyond the words of the author (interesting the author is even mentioned!). Since there is a whole field that studies the topic of "materials that bind them and the images thereon" (I spent a whole semester studying nothing but this once), this is most obviously false. (Remember how Barbauld helped start a revolution in children's literature by demanding that her children's books be printed in large-type with wide margins? The typography was a key change in Lessons for Children.) Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Barbauld's contribution was sourced. Show me a source discussing the impact of the various covers.  Existence in academia does not objective importance make.  I had the displeasure of reading a doctoral thesis on the use of barbed wire in South Dakota in the 1800s.  Not important.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But as I pointed out before, sometimes things are important, but no work has been done on them. And this is the first time I've heard that we have to have to sourced reasons for fair use. That is much too stringent in my opinion. Very few images would be included then. (Having grown up in Nebraska, I could go on for hours about the benefits and drawbacks of the introduction of barbed wire in the 19th century - I'm not fascinated by the topic, but it is actually important. See, there were farmers and cowmen...) Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Tangent: I also vote for the huge importance of barbed wire, from the American West to the Holocaust and beyond. And check out the impressive collection of barbed wire in Oklahoma City's Museum of the American West.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
 * And with that, the tangent ends. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As time seems to be an issue, how’s this for an idea (it may be cheating a bit and I’m not sure whether Sandy or Raul will approve, but I can always strike or delete): remove the questionable images for the time being so the article can promote with certainty that it is in compliance with policy. We can then continue this discussion on the talk page, without the specter of time, and re-add images when/if we reach consensus, agreement, etc or, perhaps, find alternatives. I don’t mind one way or another; I suggest this only as, again, the need for expediency has been mentioned several times. There is, also, the implication that the images are needed to make the article complete, which would make this idea a non-starter. I understand that position as well. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are the only person who thinks the book covers and the author image don't conform to policy, though. What is consensus at this stage? Do you have to agree to make it consensus? I get confused sometimes - does every, single person have to agree to make it a consensus? Is consensus actually unanimity? It might be helpful to explain this to the newbies here, too. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't have to agree. Consensus pertains to the validity of an argument, not the volume of people on a given side of it.  I don't think valid responses have been provided; no one has even really directly answered the questions I've posed.  That is, however, as you said, something for Raul/Sandy to decide.  I would point out that respondents are either involved in MMM or FAT and are, consequently and in my opinion, not entirely unbiased.  Arguments against my position would carry much more weight if they, among other things, came from third parties.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a bit of a tangent, but talking about directly answering questions... I'd be very pleased if you could address one I asked above.  Here it is again:  What would really make sense would be to have an image of Estrada Cabrera.  There was such an image on the page earlier, but that got deleted.  Honestly, I have no idea why, as surely it has to be out of copyright.  (It was a photographic image, and the chappie's been dead for over eighty years now.)  We had a discussion about that here.  Your opinions would be most welcome on that matter.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The problem is not necessarily that the arguments offered haven't been valid - the problem is that you don't find the arguments offered valid and other people do. I also take a little offense at the "not unbiased" remark. Please explain how our "bias" (whatever it might be) is getting in the way of analyzing the fair-use claims. I have carefully considered what you have to say - I believe you are right concerning the image of Juan José Arévalo, so I have not argued for that one. However, I am not convinced regarding the book covers or the author image. I have offered arguments above, endorsed other arguments, and been happy to see other people provide even more. If you are not really granting any weight to our arguments because of who we are, the editors of the article and the FA-Team should leave this discussion immediately - there is no point in continuing it. I'm sorry that you don't think the editors of this article and the FA-Team are capable of stepping back and carefully considering the merits of your proposal. I think that the discussion here actually contradicts your assertion of "bias" - we have all tried our best to understand your position and provide arguments against it. That you don't agree that the arguments provided are valid is a different matter. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've offered an argument which seems to have no objections and don't see any point in continuing a debate about something that seems to be resolved already. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for a lack of precision on my part and any resulting offense. “Not entirely unbiased” was, apparently, not soft enough.  Actual COI and the appearance of COI are both troublesome; I have high regard for the FAT folks and make no assertion of the former.  I do, however, given the nature of the project, believe that the latter exists.  I brought up the issue not because I am discounting arguments (I’m not), but because it’s a consideration when determining consensus, which is what we were actually discussing. Intimate knowledge of and close participation in a project can cause one to apply too much importance to certain aspects.  We’re not writing to literary scholars or historians; we’re writing to the general populace.  When fair use is involved (i.e. policy mandated minimal use), we need to keep considerations of importance pertinent to the layman.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "close participation in a project" can cause myopia, but I don't see that happening here - can you provide evidence of that? Furthermore, I find your arguments confusing. First you want arguments from scholars about why the book covers are important and now you want arguments focused on desires and needs of the layperson? I think this layperson argument is a dangerous one to take - yes, it is important to consider the needs and desires of readers, but not the needs and desires of the ignorant. The point of the article is to inform the reader, both through the images and the text. We shouldn't let the readers tell us how to inform them, should we? Shouldn't we use what we know to construct the best article we can? Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I said “can cause”, not “is causing”; there’s no need to provide evidence for something which I haven’t stated is occurring. I didn’t ask for scholarly arguments, I said that such would be adequate evidence that there is some importance to both covers above and beyond simple identification.  If there’s been an argument presented here that addresses that issue, I’ve apparently missed it.  These are the arguments thus far:
 * Awadewit has said “telling the history of the book is educational”. Where is the telling of this story?  What is the story?
 * G-guy has said there might be a case if “justification is correspondingly stronger”. Where’s the justification?  Both images need this justification when two are present.  If you have one cover meant to identify and one meant to illustrate something significant, you only really need the latter as it too can identify (two birds, one stone).  Use of two covers requires that each goes above and beyond identification.
 * jbmurray has offered “if one cover was appropriate, then so are two” (which is patently incorrect per NFCC#3A) and that “it is [appropriate] to include an image of the Spanish publication”. The latter is fine, so why then is the English version needed?
 * We’re here to build a free encyclopedia within the framework of a predefined policy. You’re implicitly employing IAR, but, again, not directly addressing the question of how removal of one of the images would be a detriment to the article.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll try to capture all of the questions at once; if I miss something, pls ping. From where I'm sitting, my choices are simple. I'm concerned, I'm not sure the arguments presented so far generate consensus relative to the policy, but that is partly because I just don't follow our image policy as closely as I do others. Raul has spoken on this issue, but what he said is open to interpretation (User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts). Elcobbola raises a practical solution. Since images are a weak area for me, if you all don't reach a compromise, I'll have to toss this FAC over to Raul, which could mean a significant delay, considering how busy he is. So it really comes down to whether you want to wait it out at FAC or reach a compromise now and resolve it later on talk. Once this is resolved, the article can be promoted, but I don't want to make a decision on Image policy that may set a precedent, so if it goes that way, I'll have to ask Raul, as director, to make the decision. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The MMM team is almost at the end of our semester of school. Once that happens, we will no longer be editing on wikipedia. For that reason, if the images are the only issue keeping us from FA status, elcobbla should delete them, as he does not feel that they help the general populace, the audience to which we are creating this article for. Perhaps then the discussion can move to the talk page and if the FA team feels like working out this issues with elcobbla then they can do so from there. Is that a workable solution to this issue?--Mfreud (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really 'cause it causes an uncomfortable precedent; such issues have to be bashed out and the consensus view prevails. If needs to take this on, so be it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How’s this, I’ll strike the author image concern per G-guy’s reasoning. It also doesn’t seem there is much dispute that Arevalo should go.  Can we go ahead and remove him?  That would leave just the two covers issue; only one of which needs to be removed.  Would removing one for the time being (so this can pass) and continuing on the talk page be a reasonable course of action?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that it would.--Mfreud (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should finish it here - dragging it out the talk page will be worse. 1) The book was originally published in Spanish, thus a Spanish cover is important. The edition pictured here is the definitive Spanish edition. 2) This is the English Wikipedia and most readers will encounter the text in English. In fact, the infobox, which everyone seems so fond of, even includes a field for "translator" and "date of English translation". For English readers, the translation of the text into English is an important event in its history and worth noting visually as well. English readers are more likely to encounter the book in its English translation, so having a visual representation of the English translation makes sense - that is what they are most likely to see. (Was this argument already presented, I forget). Book covers are an important visual marker of the history of the book, the topic of the article, whether any scholarship has yet been published on them. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Allright ... unfortunately (for the students), the long-term precedent on this will outlast their class timing issue, so unless something changes in the next 24 hours or so, I'll ask Raul to look in on this one. I know how busy he is, so I hate to bother him, but will ping him tomorrow if nothing changes: I'm just too weak on Image policy to set this precedent without his input.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've deleted Arévalo. I have for the moment hidden the second book cover.  (As some kind of temporary compromise.  My actions here are strongly influenced by Mfreud's expressed views.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(←) Don't worry: the class timing issue is about the nomination date, not the completion of the FAC.

Anyway, I'm sorry I've not been keeping up with this discussion especially as it seems my previous contribution has been helpful. It does contain a suggestion about the two-book-covers issue: the question is, why does the inclusion of at least one book cover have consensus support? I've given my own analysis, and other comments have illuminated this further. My point is that if one understands why the inclusion of a book cover is considered reasonable for articles on novels, then one can ask whether the arguments apply to the inclusion of a second book cover.

As I suggested, the case for the second cover has to be stronger per NFCC 3A, but I don't see why it has to be qualitatively different. In particular, I disagreed with ElCobbola's proposal that "two covers... need the support of prose identifying and discussing the importance/significance/etc. of the differences/alterations/etc." but did not have time to comment before. It seems to me that this is a made-up rule: why does the case for the second book cover have to be made in the article? It would be great if the article could discuss book covers, but there are not usually reliable sources for this, so the case for inclusion should instead be made on the talk page or at a forum like this one. And, actually, in this case, I think Awadewit has made a rather strong arguments that both book covers are needed in this example to fulfil the role that one book cover usually supplies. Geometry guy 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that Arevalo is hard to justify? Starting there might be easy ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we should ditch it. Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Instead, as noted before, it would be great to have an image of Manuel Estrada Cabrera. I've spent most of my evening looking into this, without conclusive success. There must be images in the public domain here (anything published before 1909 is public domain in the US). I've left some notes on the talk page. Maybe those with access to printed sources can find the information that is not available on the internet. Geometry guy 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (I tried to say this before, but for some reason my comment didn't take... Wikipedia hates me right now, evertthing's slow.)  Double ditto.  Both to ditch Arévalo, and if at all possible to have a pic of Estrada.  In fact, I've just deleted Arévalo from the article  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * < Off-topic discussion of derivative artwork moved to talk page. > Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment nice work. I recommend removing the disputed images.  Although I agree with a lot the reasoning for keeping the images, I wouldn't let that stand in the way of the first class project FA in history.  The pro and con arguments discussed in this debate concern one of the biggest internal debates on WP, and has been discussed literally thousands of times by thousands of editors.  There isn't any right or wrong, so the discussions can last as long as the participants want.  On the other hand, WP's discussions (strangley) engender a lot of passion, so keep at it if you want.  Again, I would grab that FA while you can.  If you never edit wikipedia again, you'll be one of our best groups of editors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I write this, the article contains 3 (low-res) fair-use images - the book cover, the author, and a picture of a film poster. All of these are clearly justifiable from the text, and from a cursory read here I don't see anyone objecting to these uses. The other controversial image(s) seem to have been removed. I don't see any reason why this cannot be promoted. Raul654 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears the images were removed just after I posted to you :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.