Talk:Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis Photograph

Untouched original

Restored photo of Jefferson Davis

Colorized

Three versions of same picture

I'm not sure that the retouching of the daguerreotype does anything to improve the article. In fact, it may distort how his eyes would have really looked. For instance, I have a biography on Davis called Jefferson Davis, American by William J. Cooper Jr. that would lead me to believe his eyes were a much different shade of blue than is depicted by the retouched daguerreotype done by Scewing. While interesting to see the the photo in color, I'm not sure it is the best option for educational purposes such as the ones espoused by Wikipedia. I propose that the original is restored because the exact color of his eyes is not verifiable.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be Scewing...not Screwing. I've added the untouched photo here. Would you agree that getting rid of the scratches and blurriness improves it? I would surmise that he put a good amount of work into that. Btw, what shade of blue is described by Cooper?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect the amount of work he put into it --and it looks cool -- but it is probably more appropriately left in the "other versions" section. I would agree that the black and white restored version has its improvements, but the original also has such an authentic feel to it. Shall we put the restored version of the black and white dageurreotype up as the main image?YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the untouched photo with the retouched (but not colorized) version here on this page. You may have a point...I'm undecided and want to think about it. The B&W is more faithful but I also appreciate the colorization. I have checked both MOS:IMAGES and the image use policy and haven't found anything against colorizing.

I would like to a) notify Scewing and b) get more community input on whether colorization is a good idea and if this is addressed somewhere in policies or guidelines.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Another problem with using the colorized photo is that if someone were to come to the main Jefferson Davis article and see the picture of him on the right-hand side there is nothing to indicate that the picture has been artificially colorized; someone might not know that the photo has been altered and they may believe it to actually be a true piece of history when it is not. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the colorized image. I think that the exact shade of the eyes is a trivial point. Have you ever looked at any old photographs? Different colors fade at different rates. Even if it had originally been a color image, it wouldn't show the exact shade of his eyes now anyway. (That's true even for color paintings, by the way.) I therefore don't think that readers have a reasonable expectation of true-to-life coloring, and so long as it's not obviously false (e.g., red eyes and green skin would obviously be a problem), then the issue can be decided on the basis of simple editorial preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing: the exact shade of the eyes is a trivial point. At most, we could add to the photo's caption something like "Modern colorized version of 1847 photo of..." I also believe we should support Scewing and his work. This kind of skill should be highly appreciated (as can be seen in File:Zachary Taylor half plate daguerreotype c1843-45-color crop.png). --Lecen (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the exact shade of his eyes may be trivial for some, but it is a fact that the image was not originally colored; history shouldn't be altered and then fully supported in an "encyclopedia", even if it is disclosed. Of course I have looked at old photographs, and I know that most of them have no color. "Different colors fade at different rates. Even if it had originally been a color image, it wouldn't show the exact shade of his eyes now anyway" is the real trivial point. I appreciate his high level of skill and I would like to support him in his endeavours, but that should not take precedence; it does not negate the fact that it is not appropriate as a main image because it has been altered. Most, if not all, of the other articles of famous civil war participants are not colorized; thus, there is a standard that is set. I don't see what the problem is with having the colorized photo only in the other versions section. I, for one, do believe that readers have a reasonable expectation of an unaltered historical photo, because I do not expect readers to assume every photograph in Wikipedia articles has been artificially altered. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A 'colorized' image isn't a historical record, and to present it in a context where it might reasonably be taken as such is misleading. It should not be used here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(still undecided) What if the caption were labeled as suggested by Lecen? As a sidenote, I own numerous World War I film documentaries and quite used to those as black & white but I also have the World War 1 in Colour series and I wouldn't see that as diminishing the historical accuracy at all...quite the contrary, I really appreciate it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this interesting discussion... Personally, I like the colored image and feel it is well-done; but at the same time, I feel that the unretouched image is the most historically appropriate. Omnedon (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's great to see a conversation about the encyclopedic value of historical photos that have been colorized! To be honest, I've colorized the Jefferson Davis, Zachary Taylor & Thaddeus Stevens photos as simply an exercise in improving my GIMP skills. I thought these images turned out well, and I researched the hair/eye color a bit for accuracy, so I thought posting it to the Commons might be valuable. Personally, I think colorized images are fine in this context, but a good discussion is definitely warranted. Scewing (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

while I've nothing in principle against the use of a colorized image in a context where this can be clearly labelled as such, I don't think it should be used without noting, and having to add such notes is rather distracting. There is also the question as to whether researching hair or eye color would fall under WP:OR. I think we should err on the side of historical accuracy rather than aesthetics in such cases, and use the original monochrome image. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone restore the original picture and move Scewing's great colorized image to the other versions section? I would like to be bold, but I'm unsure of the exact process for replacing/moving a photo.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus here is to keep the colorized version. No change is warranted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was the consensus. What is that based on? Several people above seemed to indicate that the original photo was the most appropriate. Omnedon (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is a majority here in favour of the 'colorized' image, but it might be better to try to get some more input from others. I don't want to make a big issue of this, but it is arguable that 'colorizing' is actually WP:OR, and as such, 'consensus' isn't really the best way to settle the debate - if a general policy decision hasn't been made about this issue, it probably will need to be at some point, and it might be better to discuss this in regard to a relatively uncontroversial topic like this one, rather than have the debate where other isues may intrude. Perhaps we need to check that this hasn't already been discussed elsewhere though - I'll see if I can find anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Omnedon stated that he feels the unretouched image is the most historically appropriate, as did AndyTheGrump and I. You said you don't want to get rid of it because "you surmise that he put a good amount of work into that." Which is not a valid reason at all and shows that you are already biased to leave the colorized version because you simply like it. WhatamIdoing provided no valid point for leaving the colorized image except that "it's not obviously false"; not a very good way to run an "encyclopedia" or a place where people can learn history. Lecen suggested that at least a caption should be added, which is not possible without disturbing the article. For a moment there it seemed like my -- and others -- legitimate questions and concerns had been deleted, and if so I don't appreciate it. Besides, the colorized image could be considered original research which is not allowed. So no, there has been no consensus that the colorized, altered image, should serve as the official image of the article; there is certainly no good reason other than to support a certain user's work. Please, do not claim there is a consensus when there is not, and/or when it would not matter because rules are potentially being broken.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Go read WP:BRD and learn to not echo all the bad faith stuff. Consensus has several meanings....and you don't have it in your favor to remove without a clear one...that's what I'm telling you. I have never echoed any particular point for keep or remove so don't try to put words in my mouth or declare I have a bias.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did state above, "The consensus here is to keep the colorized version." The point is that I don't believe any such consensus exists. I don't see any really strong support for keeping the current image, while I do see strong support for returning to the unmodified image. It has age-related issues which retouching and colorizing help to mitigate, but that process (especially colorization) is at least somewhat subjective, while the original image doesn't have that problem. So I would again state, the unmodified image is the most historically appropriate. Upon what do you base the statement that the consensus was for keeping the current version? Omnedon (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Scewing, WhatamIdoing, Lecen ==> Support the colorized version albeit Lecen commented that it should be noted in the caption.

Omnedon, Andy, YouMakeMeFeel ==> Support untouched original

Berean Hunter...never said either way although I did say that I appreciate the work he did...like Andy, I would have liked to have heard more from the community and remain open-minded on the issue. I will say that I'm against using the unmodified b&w and am only considering between the retouched b&w or the colorized. If the retouched b&w is off the table..then yeah, I'm for the colorized version.

Last time I checked, 3 versus 3 means no consensus to change thus the consensus is to keep as is currently. Count me and it is, so far, 4 versus 3 to keep. Youmakemefeel was stating that it needed to be changed. No, per BRD, there is no consensus as this discussion may still be considered active.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment of May 29 said there was consensus. Now, in your first sentence, you say there is "no consensus", then later in the same sentence you say, "the consensus is to keep"; then you end the paragraph by saying "there is no consensus". Given this, I'm not at all sure what you're saying. I don't agree with keeping the current image, which didn't used to be there and then was added. So let's get down to the pros and cons here. The original image doesn't involve original research, while the new one may. What are the benefits of the new one, for the purposes of this article? Omnedon (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course Scewing would support the colorized version, he is the one who made it. So even if he was in favor of keeping it there is a conflict of interests there that is obvious. You say that I don't have it in my favor to remove it without a clear consensus.. that would imply that there was a consensus to add it, which there was not; your logic is flawed.

I didn't put words into your mouth, I simply quoted what you typed; I will say you are biased when the only original defense and objection you had when I suggested moving the colorized image to other versions was "I would surmise that he put a good amount of work into that." Kind of like how you said there was a consensus, and then that there was no consensus, and then that the consensus was to not change.

WhatIamDoing supported the colorized image, and I will quote it again, because the image is "not obviously false"; that's not a good basis at all. I would add that, "Your comment of May 29 said there was consensus. Now, in your first sentence, you say there is "no consensus", then later in the same sentence you say, "the consensus is to keep"; then you end the paragraph by saying "there is no consensus". Given this, I'm not at all sure what you're saying." In my opinion, I don't believe it is very intelligent or just to fight to leave an unhistorical image on a historical article. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It means that some of you don't know what consensus means. Scewing is not dismissed as COI and he may be counted in that consensus. You are in no position to tally the logic of consensus debates as a new account so don't lecture established editors. Omnedon didn't help matters when he failed to get that I'm notifying you that no change is warranted as there is a standing discussion on the topic here.

There was a consensus to add as the image was placed in December and the article was consequently edited after that with acceptance. The first time it is questioned is five months later by a brand new account. (You are a new account right?). As consensus may change, you & Omnedon may not have understood what I meant but it doesn't matter. While there has been a consensus to keep there has not been a consensus to remove. The status quo holds at the present.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of the image change at the time, but once I became aware of it, I registered my feeling that the colorized image, while well-done, is not appropriate; and I am not alone in this. It is not helpful for you to focus on what others may or may not know about the process here; whether or not a user is "new" is irrelevant. Let's get back to the real issue here. As I and others have stated, the colorized image may involve original research. Given that, what makes it nevertheless preferable? There is no longer silence on this issue; the change that was made needs to be justified in order to be retained. Omnedon (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

...and whatever consensus that may form here will decide that issue but at present there isn't a consensus to remove. I believe more input from editors is well-warranted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is all beside the real issue. I shall ask you again: why do you wish to keep this image, given the objections that have been raised? Omnedon (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You failed to address any of the points I made >⋙–Berean–Hunter—►, instead, you tried attacking me as a "new account". We may not have understand what you meant, because what you said made no sense at all; maybe you need to be more clear like me. You claim that the consensus is not to remove.. does it matter that their reasons for not removing the picture from the article are completely ridiculous reasons such as being the creator of the image, saying he spent a lot of time on it, or that the picture is not obviously false? This discussion has been going on for over a month, and of the side that wants to keep, you seem to be one of the most interested, yet you have given no reason. At first I was willing to have it in the other versions, but now I feel it should be removed altogether so that people won't hold onto -- and become mentally attached -- to an unhistorical image moreso than even a historical one.

If "established editors" would have some common sense, I wouldn't have to "lecture" them on topics such as making sure only historical images are featured in historical articles rather than artifically altered ones.

I wish some people would stop fighting to keep an unhistorical image on the page of a historical article.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

...umm, no attack has been made on you. I'm not going to debate the issue with you further.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Redux

This discussion began on the subject of a colorized version of a grayscale daguerreotype. It seems that the discussion is now focused more on the definition of consensus than on the image; and a week has now passed with no further comment about either issue. I'd like to get back to the main issue.

Some question the image on the grounds of original research. Taking a grayscale original and adding color to it is inherently subjective. In some contexts that may not be a problem; and I am not against colorization in general, nor am I against this particular colorized image (in general). In the context of a Wikipedia article, though, it is an important issue.

So far I have seen no strong arguments in favor of this image beyond phrases like "Personally, I think colorized images are fine in this context" and "so long as it's not obviously false". On the other hand, a specific objection has been raised regarding this specific image. I'm stating once more that the colorized image resulted from original research; I’m replacing it with the unretouched version which is more historically appropriate. If anyone feels the colorized version is preferable, we need to talk about why it would be preferable. Omnedon (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been reverted because there is a clear 4 to 3 count to keep the colorized version.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's invalid reasoning and a misapplication of the term "consensus". It's not a simple voting system, and so far you are the only one who is actively defending the colorized image by reverting me -- yet you're not discussing the situation, while also claiming that the discussion is somehow open. No one stated anything for a week, so I took action. In any case, I don't see that any "vote" took place; I see, for example, a statement from Scewing saying, "Personally, I think colorized images are fine in this context" -- which is fine, of course, but it's not as if anyone has said, "this colorized image must be used here in favor of the unretouched image, and here's exactly why". Again, please discuss this; a specific objection has been raised regarding the use of the colorized image, and that objection has not been addressed. Why do you personally desire to see this image stay, given the objection that has been raised? Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia article content is governed by policy (as arrived at by a broad debate), not by a narrow 'majority' in a particular talk page discussion. 'I like it' doesn't make questions over WP:OR invalid. Berean Hunter can you give any reason why the 'colorized' version shouldn't be seen as original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a misunderstanding of my position here. With regard to policies, it takes someone who is not involved in the discussion to decide the matters that Omnedon has taken upon himself to decide. He can't negate the counter-arguments of those who oppose him although he can argue against them. I have been trying to keep the discussion ongoing pending greater community input. So far, there appears to be a consensus which does not uphold his position...I'm not opposed to continuing and if after more input can be had, if the consensus falls on the side of not using the colorized version, so be it. I would abide by that consensus. I view Omnedon's attempt to go against what is current here, however, as bad faith. I think that an uninvolved admin is the one to tally for closure of the discussion (if that is what needs to happen here). In good faith, I think Omnedon needs to revert himself and then we find more input from the community as this issue is likely to rise again. I would like input from an uninvolved admin. You will see in the discussions above that my preference was for the retouched b&w until things polarized into color vs. untouched.

Btw, at Commons, people are encouraged to retouch and cleanup photos. There are even templates which exist so that folks may request that. This seems contrary to the idea of using a completely untouched photo.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all there is not much of a counter-argument to negate because you have single-handedly failed to provide any argument at all Berean, all the while accusing another member of bad faith because you don't agree with him, and then continuing to revert. The basic position that the colorized image should not serve as the main image for this article is no longer just his, but mine, and assumingly Andy's. I don't even think a colorized image should serve as the main image for any other Historical Article; It's an issue of common sense. I view Omnedon's attempt to improve the article in a historical context as good faith.

It seems as if you have lost the debate by default and are now calling for an admin to close the discussion.

Since you now state that your preference was for the retouched b&w, that should be put as the main image for now, until we discuss this further. Certainly you would be agreeable to that since you said that was your preference? Or are you now only in favor of keeping the colorized image, still without providing justification? I appreciate your input on the matter.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Berean, looking back once more at the discussion that began on 27 April, I still don't see any strong arguments for keeping the colorized image in the infobox. If they are there, can you point them out, please? The image was placed, then later it was questioned, and no one has given any strong reasons why it must remain, whereas a strong reason for its replacement in the infobox has been given and has yet to be addressed by proponents of the image. You seem to be the only proponent to post anything about this since May 2, well over a month ago; and most of what you have said seems to relate to process, not content.

I will state one final time, just for clarity: I have nothing against this image per se. I just don't believe it's appropriate for this particular usage, for reasons that have been stated several times by me and others. You mention counter-arguments; but I honestly haven't see any. You also say you've been trying to "keep the discussion ongoing", but I asked for your reasons on 1 June, and a week passed with no further comment from anyone at all. You refer to "going against what is current", but consensus is not static, nor are Wikipedia articles; things change. You have attempted to minimize an editor's view because that editor is "new", but that's not valid; and you have attempted to take a "tally", but that's not how consensus works. Now you want an admin to "close" the discussion?

You say that "people are encouraged at Commons to retouch and cleanup photos". That may be true; but if so, I'm not sure that's relevant to this discussion. Cleaning up a photo and making it available to the public is one thing; applying original research to a historical article is another. By using the unretouched image, rather than the retouched image or the colorized image, we avoid that whole issue and can move on; this article needs lots of work in other areas. Omnedon (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Berean, will you please provided evidence that the 'colorized' image isn't a violation of [[WP:OR[] before reverting again. You cannot override policy by a narrow (or possibly non-existent) talk page consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Berean, I note now that you reverted to the colorized image three times in less than three hours. I find it interesting that after having done so, you warned me on my talk page that I was approaching 3RR, given that you had already reached 3RR. It is true that exceeding three reverts in 24 hours is a violation, so you stopped just short of that; but you warned me after just two. Let's get back to the real issue, please: the image. [1], [2], [3] Omnedon (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I won't reiterate points already well made by YouMakeMeFeel, Omnedon, Andy, etc., so I'll simply say I agree: sound reasons have been advanced for why the colorized version should not be used here. (I also see no clear arguments for why the colorized form in particular is so necessary as to outweigh those objections.) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(@ Andy) Again, my position is/was that I felt that Omnedon was moving outside of process where he shouldn't...being premature and it seems to me pushing incorrectly. I have been trying to keep the status quo even though my preference would be the retouched b&w. The OR argument/defense is not mine to make. I believe that this issue should play out in a larger arena involving more editors so that this isn't rehashed every time someone places a colorized version. I've been reverting to keep things as they are pending more input.

(@ YouMakeMeFeel) I would prefer the b&w retouched as a personal preference. My reverts haven't been to get what I prefer, however. They have been to keep what I see as the talk page consensus (or current status quo, if you like). I felt that nothing should move until something is decided. In my experience, when editors begin to press their case by reverting while a discussion is left open, I consider it disruptive and bad faith. There is no reason why a status quo can't remain until an issue is closed/ decided upon correctly...there is no deadline.

(@ Omnedon) I feel your edits were premature and disregarding the arguments that User:WhatamIdoing, User:Lecen, and User:Scewing have made. If you don't agree with them, that is fine but I don't believe that you may invalidate their arguments when you are in a content dispute with them. Saying "yeah, that doesn't count...it just doesn't sound good to me...illogical" is one thing but acting on it is incorrect. Someone who is not in the dispute may measure it that way (preferably an admin)...that I could accept.

(@ Huwmanbeing) Thank you for joining the discussion. Your input is welcome. Which of the three versions do you think belongs in the article and why?

(@ all) Like Scewing, I have retouched a few photos but probably not as many as he has. I have never colorized one. I try to keep the historical integrity of the photo intact and try to get it as close to the original when it was fresh. Some plates have been broken and areas scratched. I despeckle, crop, resize, etc., working like a photographer would do to make the best finished product that can be had. This photo is not fit for a featured article but this one is. If our readers really want to get to the original, all they have to do is follow the links and they can have it...but we ought to be displaying the highest quality within our capabilities. This one took me a good while (longer than I would have wished) but correcting the breaks in the glass and despeckling was a meticulous process (here's the original). There is my argument for using quality retouched photos.

I find the colorizing argument interesting and with possible merit particularly in some cases if not in the case of Jeff Davis. Colorizing is valued in our modern digital age just as it was historically. I believe it adds quality to the 'pedia if we mix things up a bit. Does it matter if the colorization was done in the past versus the modern day? Again, not my argument to make and I would prefer to see what others have to say about it but I also don't like the idea that we completely throw it out either. Do you feel that it is always inappropriate?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Berean, but you are still not really addressing the central issue here: that 'colorizing' an image requires WP:OR - e.g. see the discussion on Davis's eye color above. With regard to retouched photos the issue is perhaps less clear-cut, but this is an entirely different process - an attempt to restore the image to its original condition. In any case, I don't see how the colorized version "adds quality": it looks to me like exactly what it is - a colorized monchrome image. It also looks anachronistic, as the Civil War period was possibly the first significan historical event to be covered by photography - in monochrome. The colorized image just looks out of place in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Andy; that's very succinct. Berean, you claim I was premature; but you stated in late April that you were going to seek other input, yet none was forthcoming after over a month. How long must we wait for that? The article as it exists today may not be that way in a year, a month, a week, a day; the change I made addressed a legitimate concern which simply was not being addressed. I disregarded no arguments -- there was very little presented; and I have never made statements such as you seem to be ascribing to me. Please do not assume bad faith on the part of your fellow editors. Omnedon (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Using a B&W version is certainly my preference, though I guess I don't have any preference between the restored and non-restored B&W versions — either is fine with me. I can see that using a photo that's been restored simply in order to remove dust, dings, scratches, or effects introduced when scanning/photographing the original would be OK, since the goal of the restoration in that case is to remove flaws that are not original elements of the composition. However, presenting the non-restored form would also be good since it faithfully presents the composition as it exists today, and the flaws themselves may convey something of the age and history of the piece.

In contrast, modern colorization introduces new information that was never part of the original, which is why I feel that it's not appropriate in this context. Historical colorization I'm OK with — that is to say, if Jefferson Davis's original daguerreotype had itself been tinted, then that would be part of the original and would be fine. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming very late to this discussion, may I add my voice to those opposed to the colorized version. First off, in reasonable comparison, i didnt see any colorized images at Lincoln, so its not necessary to add such an image to this type of article. More importantly, any effort that WE as editors make to alter an historic image, no matter how diligent and skilled we are, even if we are employed in real life by the library of congress to colorize historic photos, cannot qualify for inclusion here. Wikimedia commons, yes, of course (hopefully with full attribution). Our posting of such an image will always qualify as original research. Now, if the library of congress, or the smithsonian, or the museum of the confederacy, undertook a notable project to colorize historic images, and published their results as copyright free, or the image they published of Davis became so well known that using it here constituted an example of fair use, then we could add it. our appreciation of the skill and integrity of the WP colorist, or whether it adds depth, humanity, character to the article is trumped by OR. even if we found a now completely grayed out former color photo of the golden gate bridge and colorized it to match its exactly known shade, we couldnt add it. Hell, even building a time machine, going back with a digital camera, and returning with a color photo, we couldnt post it here FIRST:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation of image

The daguerreotype of Jefferson Davis is attributed to Encyclopedia Virginia, a publication that only reprints the digitized version through permission from the image's owner, Museum of the Confederacy. No such permission exists for its use on Wikipedia, at least as far as I can tell. For that reason, I deleted it. Margo&Gladys (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No permission is needed if the image is in the public domain, which the original image clearly is. Are you asserting that something was done that causes this particular version to no longer be PD? Monty₈₄₅ 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I'm asserting (but I am also making some phone calls to double-check that this is the case): The Museum of the Confederacy owns the digitized version of this image. Encyclopedia Virginia needed, and obtained, permission from the Museum of the Confederacy to reproduce it on that site. No such permission has been extended to people who take it from the Encyclopedia Virginia site and reproduce it on Wikipedia. Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Derived_works_and_restorations_of_works_in_the_public_domain. An Image from 1853 is clearly public domain. I don't see how this is an exception. Monty₈₄₅ 18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This object and the derived digital image is owned by the Museum of the Confederacy. It doesn't matter that it is from 1853. It doesn't belong to the public; it belongs to the museum and can only be used with permission. Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who has ownership of the physical original work, copyright law determines if permission is needed to copy it. Copyright has a limited term, and for something created in 1853, it has long expired. As a result, the work may be freely copies by anyone who manages to. You have not pointed to any special circumstance here that alters that analysis. Monty₈₄₅ 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, but it's not my intention to be contentious here. You're welcome to undo my edit, and when I have a more definitive explanation for why this reproduction is inappropriate, I'll post it. Thanks. Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it, but if you think I'm wrong, you may want to consider bringing it up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, as the regulars there probably have the most expertise on copyright issues. Monty₈₄₅ 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just talked to a lawyer familiar with copyright law, and not to put too fine a point on it, but you're right and I'm wrong. I would like to ask either you or the original uploader of the photo to do one thing: in addition to crediting Encyclopedia Virginia as the source, credit The Museum of the Confederacy, which owns the three-dimensional object. Thanks for your patience. Margo&Gladys (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As in change the source attached to the file to read something like "Encyclopedia Virginia print of a daguerreotype from the Museum of the Confederacy" instead of just Encyclopedia Virginia? You can make the change yourself if you want, or let me know and I wouldn't have a problem changing it to say that. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I took care of it. Thank you! Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a good portrait photo that can be touched up from the Library of Congress. This would not have any copyright infringements. Here is the link: Jefferson Davis, three-quarter length portrait, facing right

Administration and cabinet

In looking for ways to improve this article, I noticed that the "Administration and cabinet" section consists only of a table that shows the members of the cabinet. We probably need some prose paragraphs that describe the cabinet over time -- such as the transition from (for example) one Secretary of War to the next. The table is excellent but should be there to support the section, not comprise it. At some point I will work on this, but if anyone would like to take it on, that would be great. Omnedon (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A section on the cabinet has now been added. I may expand and improve it further, but it at least shows those who held cabinet positions and is fully referenced. The table, which comprised the entire section before, may or may not be needed in this article now; a duplicate of the table exists in the article on the Confederate States of America. Omnedon (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

MilHist B-Class assessment

This looks pretty good and is not very far off B-Class IMO -- main thing needed is a minimum of one citation for each paragraph, and resolution of any fact tags, see following sections:

• Marriage, plantation life, and early political career
• Senator
• Secretary of war
• Return to Senate
• Final days of Confederacy
• Administration and cabinet
• Memorials

On the prose side, I think there are a few too many semi-colons, but that's not a big deal until/unless you take to GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the needed references have now been added; I'm working on a few which will require a bit more digging. At least for now, I've also removed the "Memorials" section, as there is already an article that lists memorials to Jefferson Davis, and it is linked in the "See also" section. Omnedon (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Last-mentioned sounds like a good idea, what was in this article was bound to be only a partial list anyway. Citations look much better, only marriage and cabinet parts still need them I think. Aside from the semi-colon point mentioned earlier, something that doesn't particularly concern me at B-Class level but might at GA or above is the one-paragraph subsections -- generally subsections should contain more than one para to justify their existence, so if taking this further consider either fleshing out the shorter subsections, or merging them with adjacent ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe everything is now referenced fairly thoroughly, with the exception of the paragraph describing the two Muller-Ury portraits; I'm still searching for a way of citing those statements. As mentioned above, there is now a prose section on the cabinet, with references. I've also decreased (though not eliminated) the use of semicolons. Ian, I'm not sure if you normally do this or would be interested, but while I'm writing -- would you be interested in doing a peer review of this article, preparatory to taking it to GA? Omnedon (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. One little prose point I noticed, you have "postwar" in the lead but "post war" under the last portrait -- choose one (I'd thought the first was correct) and stick to it throughout. If you put the article up for peer review, I'd be happy to contribute -- let me know when it's there and I'll make sure it's on the MilHist 'open tasks' list so it gets wider exposure. My gut feel at this stage is that it'd make a decent GA candidate more-or-less as is, and once that's achieved a MilHist A-Class Review would be the logical next step. However if you want the MilHist B-Class (which is strict as far as citations go) ASAP then you'd have to cite the portrait passage or else comment it out for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Naturally if a statement can't be cited, I'd ultimately remove it; but I may still be able to find a source on the portraits. Unfortunately no one else currently seems to be involved with the article, and I don't know where that paragraph came from. In any case, before taking this to peer review (and on to GA), I think I will spend a bit more time digging into the other sections of the article and try to improve it as much as I can. Omnedon (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian, since you are experienced with this, would you say it would be worthwhile to reach B-class now and continue to with improvement and a peer review after that? Would that be helpful, given that the ultimate goal is GA/FA? If it would, then let's go for B-class. Omnedon (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't been around lately. I'm happy that the references parameter of MilHist B-Class is met, so I've upped the MilHist (and Biography) assessment accordingly. I expect that all the other projects should fall in line with the B-Class assessment but as I'm not a member of any of them I've left them as they are for the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The article has virtually nothing about Davis and slavery, either his personal ownership of slaves, his moral/religious support for slavery, or his involvement in the politics of slavery -- both before the war and during the war. I've added a brief mention of his early acquisition of slaves but much more is needed. I don't think that the article can be judged Class B until Davis' full relationship to slavery is discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's an important aspect that needs coverage, and what you've added seems good. I'm not sure I'd agree that "much more" is needed, given the size of the article -- it should not be given disproportionate weight -- but some more, certainly. Since you seem familiar with it, if you can provide additional cited material, that would be great. Omnedon (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

By much more I mean Davis' involvement in, among other things, his involvement w/ the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the call for a slave code in the territories and his role in the split in the Democratic Party in 1860, his actions during the Secession Winter, his use of slaves during the war, as well as his personal philosophy obn slavery.

IMO size will be a problem at some point. He had an eventful life even before the Civil War and a FA level of comprehensiveness should bring the article up to a comparable size of Abraham Lincoln (Good article 140,000 bytes) or George Washington (GA Class at 127,000 bytes). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In recent months I've been working mostly on readability, MOS issues, citation issues, and general improvements; and while I've added some additional material in the way of expanding existing paragraphs, I agree that more is still needed for the article to be really comprehensive. That's why I wondered if you could add some of the material you have mentioned, since you seem quite conversant on the subject. I also will sift through the sources I have for more details; adding the correct amount of detail and maintaining overall balance is always the trick, of course. Omnedon (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of going through the Cooper and William C. Davis biographies to fill in his career at least up to the Montgomery Convention. I noticed that the dates for his election to office in both works put his first election to Congress in November 1845 with his swearing in on 12-8-45 so I'm changing that in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Following on from my comment above, I think that once you guys are satisfied with any additional content, you should certainly submit to GAN and, following that, MilHist A-Class Review. Together, those two will give you a very useful dry run for FAC. My one admonishment is to be sparing with further detail, as I think it's of reasonable length all up for even FA, let alone GA -- as Omnedon suggests, it may be that some juggling of the balance of the existing info is necessary rather than a lot more info over all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson Hamilton Davis?

Did he have such a name?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)