Talk:Jane Morgan

The Troubadours

The article link for "The Troubadours" goes to the article about a current UK band and should be fixed. I suggest someone should research the Kapp Records group that backed up Jane on "Fascination" (and are heard without Jane on the flip side of the original 45 doing "Fascination"), and also the late 20's group led by Hugo Frey which recorded numerous sides for Victor, both acoustic and Orthophonic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.229.129 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your groups mentioned at Troubadour (disambiguation) either. Is there any chance you could be the "someone" who doea the research? I'd be happy to work with you to put the material in an appropriate article and sort out the naming. Franamax (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jane Morgan "Singing Style" section.

"... an elegant Juilliard sound"? With a link to the article on that music school? Does the music school acknowledge that sound ("with little sense of rhythm or beat"), and that Jane Morgan used it? Isn't a word of explanation in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOFL (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

This is the publicity image in question

Some time ago, after a diligent search, I added an image of Jane Morgan to the infobox, for the obvious reasons. Because there were no available free images images that conformed to our license, I used a publicity picture, and labelled the image with the proper rationale for using a publicity picture. (Here is a Google Image search showing that there are no images of Jane Morgan with a compatible license available: [1]) Now an editor has tagged the picture as not being compliant with NFCC #1 as being apicture of a living person, about whom it is presumed a free image can be found. However, because as explained above, in actuality there are no compatible free images, I have disputed the tagging.

So far, so good. The problem is that the editor who tagged the image removed it from the article, and, despite the fact that I have disputed the tagging, and that we are awaiting adjudication about who is correct about the usability of the article, the editor continues to remove it, on the theory (I guess) that once he has tagged it, there is no question that it is a violation and therefore must be removed. However, there has been no decision made concerning the status of the image, it remains available; the image can be removed from the article once (and if) it is deleted, but in the meantime, because the NFCC tagging has been disputed, it should remain in the article. After all, we don't delete articles after they've been tagged to be speedied or prodded or AfD'd, we wait for the outcome of that process to delete them. The same should be true here. The tagging of the image represents the opinion of a single editor that the image is non-compliant, and that is not sufficient to remove the image from the article. It must be confirmed by the result of the process, whether that is the decision of an admin, or the outcome of a community discussion.

Perhaps the editor believes that his word is law, and cannot be challenged, perhaps he believes that by removing it, the orphaning of the image from any article gives a second bite at the apple in getting it deleted, I don't know. But I do think that the editor should be told to have a little patience and await the outcome of the process that he started with the tagging of the image, and not presume that his judgment will automatically be upheld. Since he has done the same kind of thing for many, many other images, he should also be told to do a little WP:BEFORE-type investigation before he assumes that every image conforms to the presumption of NFCC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• This borders on the facetious. BMK added a nonfree image to a BLP based on their inaccurate claim that the subject was deceased. Their "diligent search" misspells the subject's stage name and, rather than actually reviewing the set of available images, relies on other people's tagging. They also haven't bothered to search the scores (if not hundreds) of publicity photo and celebrity memorabilia listings at Ebay, which are a rich source of out-of-copyright free images. Their argument about "assuming" that a policy "presumption" holds makes no sense whatever: the whole point of a presumption is to presume that the statement is correct. The burden is always on the person who disputes the presumption to show good reason why it doesn't hold. And "I did a Google search and didn't see a free image" falls flat on its face. (Especially since that particular Google filter turns up mostly images already on Wikipedia. It doesn't do a particularly good job of that, either. I've uploaded hundreds of covers of Amazing Stories to Commons; there are more than 400 total uploads of such covers. The GSearch I just ran, using BMK's approach, misses more than 80% of them.[2] Not something you can place confidence in). The general issue is being discussed at the NFC talk page, and so far there's no support for BMK's position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The claim that she was deceased was a simple mistake, which I corrected myself once I noticed it. HW said in g=his last removal that discussion was running against my dispute of his claim. Where is that discussion> I cannot find any indication of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: There's no basis for retaining the image. First, the idea that we can't seem to find a compatible license image at the moment is never a justification for retaining a non-free image. That argument has been used very frequently in the past, and it has always failed. The reason is quite simple; WP:NFCC #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis mine). Further, the Foundation has set out a policy regarding this. This policy (viewable here) states that the policy can not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... local policies of any Wikimedia project." It goes on to state we do not accept non-free imagery for "almost all portraits of living notable individuals" (again, emphasis mine). These policies ARE law so far as we editors are concerned, and barring a change in those policies they can not be challenged. The Foundation is quite clear about this. Jane Morgan is most emphatically alive. As now recognized by BMK, the rationale on image is false; the subject is alive. IF there were secondary sourced discussion regarding THIS particular image and therefore established notability of THIS image, then it could be included. That's not the case here. The image is being used purely for depiction purposes only, as stated on the image description page. There is no prose on the article discussing the image. It has no relevance to the article other than to depict the subject. This is a clear cut case; no FFD is required. This has been repeatedly established over the years. If you want to run it through FFD, fine, I've no problem with that. But the image as it stands is a clear cut WP:CSD#F5 case. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'd also like to add that edit warring in an attempt to remove/add this picture was flat wrong. Both of you breached WP:3RR. Both of you have been blocked for edit warring in the past. Both of you know better than to behave like this. The encyclopedia isn't going to come crashing down because the image is/is not on the article. The image has been on the project for over five years. We can afford to wait a few days with the image on/off the article while things are sorted out. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for full protection of the Jane Morgan's article

Due to a fairly belligerent and completely useless edit war in the last few days, a request for full protection has been forwarded. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit

Please restore the infobox image File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg. As noted above, there has been no decision made as of yet whether it is in violation of NFCC #1, simply a claim of such by one editor, and a disputing of that claim by me. As noted above, a Google search shows that there are no available images of this person with licenses compatible with Wikipedia's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the edit that the edit war the page protection was supposed to stop is about, yeah? May be more advisable to discuss this with @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: rather than to drag admins into the dispute. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

His position is unmoveable, his attitude dismissive, his arrogance supreme. What he does not have is the authority to keep the image removed when that removal is disputed. Admins are here to deal with problems such as this. I have stated a case for the image to be restored until such time as its status is determined, and have presented a prima facie case for the disputation of his tagging. This, it seems to me, should be sufficient to have the image restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that another editor -- not myself -- removed HW's NFCC tag and my disputing tag from the photo in question, and suggested the issue go to FfD. Certainly in that case, the file should be restored to the article until there's a determination in that venue about deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

All very well, but there's no impetus for HW to discuss further, since the article is protected without the image in it, which makes the image orphaned, which means it will be deleted in a week without HW lifting a finger. This systemic problem is an interesting one, in that as soon as any editor claims that an image is an NFCC violation, all the tools and presumptions are on that editor's side, and there's little or nothing an editor who disagrees with the tagging can do. This is unlike any other situation on Wikipedia I am aware of, even BLP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• That it was protected has nothing to do with the image's status as a non-free file. The edit war is what caused the protection, not its copyright status. One thing has nothing to do with the other. For what its worth (see above), this is a cut and dry case of where a non-free image must be deleted. Whether it's deleted via F5 or F7 is immaterial. F5 actually benefits you as F7 under RFU wait period is only two days, as opposed to the seven days of F5. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Also, you could convert the orfud to an ffd. I believe (not sure, but think) the bot honors that. Then you could have your discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have declined the deletion of the non-free image because there is a long-standing contentious difference in opinion on the interpretation of the policy in regards to living individuals who have been inactive for quite some time and have become recluse; this is not limited to just the two users above or this particular case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'm not quite seeing your justification for removing the image from the article when you've already tagged it for deletion. There is no policy to support your actions; in fact, it would be better to keep the image in the article to allow reviewing administrators to properly assess its use at the time it's tagged. At this point, you should nominated the file for deletion at WP:FFD if you seek to pursue it.

Additionally, There'sNoTime, this page should not have been fully protected. The dispute is between two users only, and that should have led to both being blocked for edit warring. This page should be unprotected as long as both parties agree to cease reverting each other and continue dialog in a form that is not disruptive to the article. ℯxplicit 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's no evidence anywhere that Jane Morgan is recluse. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'll happily unprotect the article once both parties agree to cease reverting each other and continue dialog in a form that is not disruptive to the article. As for the protection in the first place, I'd much rather two editors who ought to know better were put in the position where they had to discuss the issues rather than blocking them both (and probably compounding the issue further) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what prompted me requesting a protection rather than two blocks. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Restarting the discussion

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Is there some way in which we can reach a compromise about the use of this image, or find some other solution? If you do a plain old Google search for "Jane Morgan singer", there are many images out there [3], but if you use the "Usage rights" tool to narrow the search to images which are "labelled for reuse with modifications" (which is the closest equivalent to our CC-BY-SA), no images of Jane Morgan are left [4]. The New York Public Library has one image of Morgan in its digital collection [5], to which they control the copyright, and it's not available on terms which are compatible with our license. The Library of Congress has no images of Morgan [6]. Flickr has no images of Morgan [7]. I've run out of places to look for a free image. You said in an early edit summary that it would take a "half-hour" to find a free image of Morgan -- where would you suggest I look to do that? Any advice you might have as to places to look would be welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo lied (a joke; bear with me). It didn't take a half hour to find a free license image of her. It took me about five minutes. See this. There are probably more. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)