This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have removed Larry-Vickers-6.jpg because the justification given for its use was the general created by the military one but the post-production blur means that this use doesn't apply unless the blurring was done by the military (unlikely). This means that we need permission from whoever modified the image. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be a straight reproduction or scan, we say "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights" and what you are presenting here is not a scan, its an original work of whoever did the blurring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're right. The Wikipedia:Public Domain page states: "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies."
I don't think modifying an image by blurring out a few faces meets minimum creativity copyright rules as stated in the image use policy page. Therefore we are not required to seek the permission of whoever modified it which is probably either Larry Vickers himself or Panteao Productions. This image was also used in a youtube video called "Profiles of Courage: Larry Vickers." 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:99AE:63BC:8C10:EDD2 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original use of the work by whoever did the blurring falls under public domain use... But the resulting image does not, as you yourself argue the owner of the image is probably either Larry Vickers himself or Panteao Productions. We can of course use the original public domain image if it can be found, there really isn't an editorial reason to blur the other faces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to blur the other faces is that they are possibly still in Government service or they just don't wish to be identified. In which case blurring of faces is allowed under the "Alternatives" section of the image use policy. However, I still do not agree with you and neither do any of the policies or guidelines that I have read. This has been a waste of our time over nothing and I suggest we either just end this argument right now and leave the image removed from the page or get an admin involved and they can determine if the image belongs or if it should be selected for deletion. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:F163:DF6E:483E:FE1A (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. I just read a part of that site's site policies/terms of use and they make it clear that these 2 images are copyrighted and can't be used elsewhere. The other image should be removed from the page and they both should be selected for deletion. However, whether or not horse eye's claim is true or not is a different matter. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It never did turn. Panteao only released the blurred image. The pages Image use policy, Threshold of Originality, Commons:Threshold of originality do not support your claim of images modified with blurring have a new copyright. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion, however since being listed there a third editor has commented, meaning a third opinion is no longer needed; 3O is intended for discussions between only two editors. A relevant filing at DRN has been closed. In line with the closing comment at DRN, I would suggest letting the relevant image deletion discussions take place before moving forward. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a "some of this article's listed sources may not be unreliable" tag from Jul 2021. Looking through the sources list, it's not immediately clear which sources are being referred to (else I would attempt to improve the situation). Using inline "unreliable source?" or "better source needed" needed tags would be infinitely more useful, for readers and for editing.
If you can identify poor sources via inline tags, please do so! I will also attempt to, and then remove the article tag. Thanks. –Tsavage (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Floppies" is a description of how a shot person collapses, and is not racial in nature. I realize this is hard for liberals to comprehend, but not everything is race-related. 2/3 of the Rhodesian Army were black, and were not "Floppies." The communists they shot flopped down dead when slotted, and some of them were Cuban advisors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.41.181 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For one, the NYT is a better source than you are. Not to mention states, groups, and movements tend to whitewash themselves, the confederates did it, the nazis did it, the rhodesians did it. Ask a confederate if the n word is racist or offensive, of course they're gonna say no. Also 2/3 of the rhodesian army being black does not preclude it being a white minority rule state. Wozrop (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]