Talk:Gillian Keegan/Archive 1

Official portrait

See the RfC close below.
Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My addition of the official parliamentary portrait of Gillian Keegan in the inbox has now been reverted twice by User:GillianKeegan. I've made this section to explain why I've re-reverted, and re-included the photo.

The photograph is a high-quality, free-use, official portrait of a public figure and should certainly be included in this article, which has no other images of its subject – unless there is a better image which is available to be used (and even then, the official portrait would probably be worth including).

Beyond this, I'm guessing that User:GillianKeegan is an account owned by the subject of this article. As the account has only been created recently, and has no other activity beyond these reverts, it's likely they are not aware of Wikipedia's various rules – but: the subject of an article editing that article is strongly discouraged as a conflict of interest, as per WP:AB. Issues regarding articles about yourself are best resolved via this talk page, or via WP:BLPN.

Hope that all makes sense :) Charlie A. (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it isn't some sort of official cock-up whereby the photo has been labelled as her when in fact it is not, there are no legitimate grounds for removing a public domain image of her. She is a public figure and her photographic image will appear all over the place. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but at the same time there is no requirement that an image has to be included in this or any article regardless of whether it's in the public domain. As pointed out above, GillianKeegan and MG Keegan 1 both seem to have been created simply to remove this image. Assuming the accounts were created by Keegan herself and her husband Michael, there might be a reason they would prefer not to use the image which has nothing to do with the file's copyright status. Of course, I'm not suggesting we have to acquiesce to their wishes and not use the file, but only that we don't the reasons why it was being removed and that simply re-adding it might lead to edit warring. These are new accounts who are probably not familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, especially WP:OWN. So, at least now, they can discuss their reasons here and give others the chance to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, sorry. She is a public figure and this is an official photo. If she doesn't like it then get another official photo taken because she sure as hell isn't going to be able to stop newspapers etc from using it. Edit warring can be sorted out anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is nonsense about trying to engage these two editors to see what their concerns are. Again, I'm not suggesting that image needs to be removed, but only that images are like textual content in that they may need to be discussed when there are disagreements about whether they should be used. Unless you going to claim that the repeated removal of the image was just vandalism, it seems good faith to assume that there might be a reason behind the edits. Anyway, they've both been pinged, so perhaps one of them will notice this discussion and respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this Tweet may explain why they removed the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be nice to play happy-clappy but it won't make any difference. If she doesn't like it, get the official photo changed. The existing one will already be out in newspapers etc. It's a waste of our time and hers. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is one alternative: she supplies a suitably licensed photo for use in the article (and thus eventually many other places). However, we're not here to massage egos etc, so I don't actually see a pressing need to change it to a preferred alternative. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Sitush. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the official Gillian Keegan and I do not like this photo. No one else has used this photo for this purpose and I was not asked permission for the photo to be taken. I am in the process of having a new photo taken in September and will change it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GillianKeegan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting that the UK Parliament took a covert photograph of you and then disseminated it for use worldwide without copyright restrictions. Regardless, if you are the article subject then you should not change the image here but instead should ask for contributors to consider your proposal for a change. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new portrait of Gillian, I suggest we go back to the old official portrait, it's so much better, particularly as Gillian, against all the guidelines, has changed the pic. I'd love to see the UK press do a number on a UK policician editing their own Wiki BLP. . Opinions? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is more about the licensing than about which photo looks better. We have someone claiming to be a currently standing polictician, whose account has not been OTRS verified, uploading images to Commons as "own work" without any OTRS verification of license. This also appears to be a crop of File:Gillian Keegan MP.jpg, which does have EXIF data, but which shouldn't be licensed as "own work" since the EXIF data clearly credits the copyright to someone else. Techinically, these could've been flagged as a copyvios on Commons, but I felt giving the upoloader a chance to send in a permissions was a better thing to try instead. If the licensing is not verified in a week the files will be deleted.

Assuming in good faith that this is really Keegan, we have no way of knowing whether she is doing the editing herself, or instructing her staff (which would be a violation of WP:NOSHARING) to do this on her behalf. I think we have to go back the original photo simply because it's licensing can be verified without a doubt. The other COI type issues are also problematic, but these can be cleaned up or discussed at WP:COIN. I also think a softblock might be in order per WP:REALNAME until OTRS can verify the account; I previously advised the user of this on their user talk, and it wouldn't have been a big deal if they simply stopped editing. If they are going to keep reappearing every now and then, they should get their account verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the licencing of the new photo at all it is totally commons compatable. Try to ignore the COI and single purpose, vanity concerns and just ask yoursself, which is the best photo of this living person? Govindaharihari (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo under wrong licence at commons

Gillian_Keegan_MP_Official_Portrait - this pic is ok to use but has been uploaded to commons under the wrong licence and may well be deleted in a few days. It needs re-uploading or correcting at commons. The commons compatable released image is here Govindaharihari (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody tell me what 'Dods' is? (Nice to see the Prime Minister approved photo of Gillian back.) -Roxy the dog. bark 16:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dod's Parliamentary Companion, which is almost an encyclopedia of things parliamentary. The other main parliamentary resources are Hansard and Erskine May - the former is the official record of speeches/proceedings and the latter is akin to a rule book. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing Govindaharihari found seems correct to me. So, the Commons file can be just changed as needed. As for which photo is used, I personally have no preference, so whatever the local consensus turns out to be is fine with me, but Keegan and her husband (MG Keegan 1) appear to have a strong dislike for the other photo, so assuming they are who they claim to be (the "GillianKeegan" account is currently soft-blocked), maybe using the second photo should be given strong consideration. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marchjuly has done the good work at commons, so it seems this is all cleared up now. Thanks to all. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still utterly confused with this. We have consensus to use the original image, which is still shown as a PD license at Commons. So why are we seeing it being replaced by an alternate image with claims that the original is a copyright infringement? I'm also pretty sure that Lvta (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest here. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Photos have to have a source link, the link used to the official image as added kindly by Govindaharihari (talk) shows the second image, this had been sorted, I am unsure why you are insistent on old photo? - lvta (talk)

There was a valid link at the time it was uploaded. Nothing says that it has to stay valid. That you do not understand my insistence reflects your lack of understanding of consensus and, probably, your conflict of interest. I am reverting you for the latter reason - feel free to continue discussion here, however, as per WP:COI (now there's a link to follow). - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit summary here is BS. Take a look at the official profile in External Links or the one on the cited local council website. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pic I have just restored to the page was properly licensed at the time it was uploaded, and was the official parliamentary photo of her. Her nonsense claims above (if it was her, and I believe it was) really don't hold water. If we allow her or her meatpuppets to continue to treat this page as a vanity thing, then the door has been opened for future involvement, which we should discourage. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments about meat puppetry, but at the same time the licensing of the pink photo has been sorted out and it does seem to be the official photo used by the British government. The main objection raised above in #Official portrait was that the other option(s) was not an official portrait; it was even suggested that if Keegan didn't like her official photo, then she should get it changed. Well that appears to be what she did, so I am curious as to know what the remaining issues with the pink photo are. Is this simply to show the subject of articles that they can never have their way when it comes to article content or are there other technical reasons why the pink photo shouldn't be preferred over the older photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some policy which says that we are obliged to use UK Parliamentary official pics of MPs, which is what the pink pic now is, or do we do things by consensus? -Roxy the dog. bark 02:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons for wanting to use the older photo seem to have been that it was the official photo used by the British government and the licensing of the proposed alternatives were iffy. Those reasons no longer apply, so I am wondering if there are any other WP:IUP reasons as to why the former official photo should be preferred over the current official photo. Consensus is fine, but if it is simply a consensus based upon a desire to prevent any possible future COI editing with the actual image being used only a secondary concern, then I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. Anyway, I've posted {{Please see}} templates at the relevant WikiProject's to see if we can get more feedback which would help establish a stronger consensus either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it was the case that we mentioned she could change her official photo, nowhere do I think it was said that we are obliged to use it. She uses different photos on different "official" website anyway. When an MP and/or people connected with her spend so long wrangling about a vanity issue, one has to wonder what the press would make of it. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but it might be better to start a new thread discussing this now that the licensing of the "pink photo" (I'm calling in that for the lack of a better term at the moment) has been resolved. A new post about this was just added to #Official photo so now there are two ongoing threads basically discussing the same issue which is not going to be conducive to proper discussion. If a new thread is not needed, then maybe moving some of the comments from this thread to the "Official photo" thread could be done and the discussion could continue there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got threads at Drmies talk page, here and DRN, all involving the illegitimate accounts, and Govindaharihari has started threads at my talk page and BLPN. How many more threads? It is becoming silly and since the green photo is not a copyright problem etc, we should just drop the entire issue. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright problem with both photos at all, they are both totally commons compatable. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but one had consensus and the other is supported by you and probable socks. (The DRN thread that MichaelKeegan opened has now been closed as inappropriate.) - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no strong clear consensus here at all. Lets open a WP:RFC - Govindaharihari (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. And now you're suggesting an RfC, which strikes me as still more "forum shopping" style behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally in favor of the green photo. My only concern about the pink one had to do with its licensing, but since that has been resolved I am not sure why the green photo should automatically be preferred over the pink one. If there's a good WP:IUP for choosing one over the other, then fine. However, it does seem from other threads discussing this that green photo is being preferred simply because Keegan seems to want to use the pink one instead; there also seem to be concerns that allowing the pink photo might encourage further COI editing by Keegan or people associated with her. For reference, COI editing is not expressly prohibitted by Wikipedia; it's only highly discourage, but as long as WP:COIADVICE is followed it can be monitored and dealt with as needed. Trying to prevent possible future COI edits doesn't seem (at least to be me) to be a very good reason for choosing one image over another. The discussion should be about which of the two photos best complies with relevant guidelines/policies and is the best for Wikipedia purpose. The COI stuff can be dealt with if and when it happens, just like the socking/meat puppetry is being dealt with at WP:SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pink one glamorises her. COI is an issue and I wouldn't completely rule out paid editing at some point, either. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, the pink one is not glamorous, it is simply a better portrait of her, I agree with that but it is not glamorous, it is her current parlimentary profile photois is a quality square on portrait as per infobox requirements Govindaharihari (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not her current parliamentary profile photo. You are falling for the lies. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was and it still a good photo for the infobox - if the new one is better lets upload it - I object to editors insisting and edit warring a worse photo just because of coi and sock issues. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari: You should really stop messing around with the infobox image until we can at least decide which way to move on this. It's not helpful, is likely only going to lead to more reverting and it's only going to make further discussion difficult. The uncropped green photo should be left in place for the time being per WP:STATUSQUO until things are resolved. There are no outstanding licensing issues with the green photo, so it does not need to be immediately removed. Let the discussion play out and see if a resolution can be reached. One thing to consider might be figuring out if there's a way to incoporate both photos. Not sure if that's feasible, but it might be worth discussing. Also, starting new threads about this on multiple noticeboards is only going to fragment the discussion and make it that much harder to reach a consensus. If you feel the need to inform others, follow WP:CANVASS and use Template:Please see instead. If others want to comment, they can comment in this thread.

@Sitush: Paid editing might be an issue, but WP:PAID doesn't really apply to Commons. If the file's licensing is not an issue, then it will not likely be deleted from Commons regardless of who uploaded it. So, we can use it on Wikipedia if the consensus is to do so. As for glamorizing Keegan, there's no policy/guideline that says unglamorous photos need to be used and I don't see the pink photo as being all that different from other photos of people smiling. The third photo you've linked to above also seems possible. Would that be an acceptable compromise if it's licensing is acceptable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So you agree that your rationale was wrong, Govindaharihari? PAID applies here, even if not at Commons, socking applies here and I'm blowed if we should pander to vanity. They're had enough warnings and explanations, and we do not even know whether they are actually the article subject/relation/agent or just someone impersonating etc. There is no need to compromise. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just do not understand wp:blp do you Sitush. Look into my eyes .... BLP overides everything. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not necessarily override everything at all times and you should be careful of WP:CRYBLP. It would be better from a discussion stand point if everyone involved could stick to discussing the merits of the images in question and try to avoid commenting on other editors/personalizing the discussion. The latter will just create more tension and make it harder to find a resolution acceptable to all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of cry blp , it is a simple which is the more policy compliant photo. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. They're both policy-compliant. WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

I have restored the subject's preferred picture (I am in contact with the parliamentary data and web teams, who have confirmed this preference), now correctly licensed, per WP:BLP. There is absolutely no reason not to comply with this request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, (Andy Mabbett) please could you clarify which part of WP:BLP says that the subject of a BLP can choose a photograph to use, against consensus? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, (a) I couldn't care less what the parliamentary data team says, even though Wikidata might; (b) the parliamentary web team needs to get its own house (sic) in order, as you would know if you had actually read this page instead of storming in to impose your preference. I think you may have been conned, Andy, as various socks operating on this article and elsewhere have been lying about things. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" If the subject finds it troubling to have a specific image here, for whatever reason, and we have another that is equally suitable, then we should consider their feelings and wishes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specious. It is no more her official photo than several others. Whoever told you that it is, it sure ain't the parliamentary website people and there has been a lot of socking and lying going on here. There's nothing wrong with the image as it was and your connections mean little. If it really does trouble her then she won't last long as an MP. The green image is used, for example, at theyworkforyou and 'neither are used at the parliament website. Now self-revert and wait for consensus to change, please. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c + e/c) Harm hasn't been demonstrated. "I don't like it" is not harm. Putting the poorer picture back, you know, the pink one with the shadows across the left side of the pic as viewed, is not justified. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not require "harm to demonstrated"; the quote refers to "the possibility of harm" (emphasis mine). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no claim about relative "officialness"; so that's a straw man. I know for a fact that my contacts work in Parliament, and I have known them for some time. Are you accusing me of "socking and lying"? I'm sure TWfY will also update their image, sooner rather than later. The "pink" image is used by Parliament at https://beta.parliament.uk/media/hNwrafgD Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not accusing you of socking. I'm saying that there as been a lot of misinformation spread about by people who claim to be her, her husband or a constituent, all now blocked as socks. Eg: that the green photo was the "exclusive property of Dods" and that pink photo is the official photo, neither of which are correct. You may have fallen for some of that. The pink photo is awful, the green one had consensus. What you and your contacts get up to is your business but your relationship with them, and perhaps via past paid work sponsored by the WMF etc, can't be allowed to influence us here. Surely? - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are accusing me of lying? The misinformation is now clarified (as I have explained, I have "fallen for" nothing); and we know the subject's preference. There is no reason not to take that into account, especially given the clause quoted from BLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, Andy. You know I haven't accused you of lying and are just using your common tactic of ramping it up with irrelevant questions. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the 2nd post trying to draw attention to this at BLPN, moved my comment from there to here: Its not an equally suitable picture (pink). Its equally policy compliant with commons and Wikipedia, but its a lesser quality photo. There is no actual BLP issue other than the subject preferring one over the other - we are required to take their concerns into consideration but that does not mean we are required to agree with them. I would suggest a formal RFC to settle it, but until then, the status quo picture is both compliant with policy and of a high enough quality to not merit being removed. This is not difficult, we have two pictures, we can pick one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marchjuly and Govindaharihari and Pigsonthewing. "The article subject doesn't like it" isn't the be all and end all, but it is important. In a case where the two photos are so similar, we should certainly take the one she prefers. If you read the discussion above, you'll see where she objected to the old (green?) photo, and several editors told her that if she doesn't like it, she can have a different photo taken, and release it under a free license. Well, she's done that now (the pink photo?). It's perverse for us not to use it. I also don't see the "its a lesser quality photo" grounds. It's a fine photo. It "glamorises her"? What now? Is there vaseline on the lens and is she lying on a piano in a cocktail dress? No, she's in a perfectly appropriate state for an MP, which is what we are writing about her as, her face is visible and identifiable, and it's appropriately licensed; that's pretty much all we can require. As Jimbo says "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad". We need a good deal more than "there is a small shadow down the side of the subject's nose" than to choose a photo that the subject doesn't like, and has said so emphatically, over one that she does. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a perfectly reasonable argument to make in an RFC. The main benefit of an actual RFC over a free-flowing discussion like the above is that it stops the ridiculous back and forth edit-warring on the article while it goes on (which given the editors who have commented so far, they should really have known better). Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly hasn't expressed a preference. Please note yet again that we have nothing here to verify which one she prefers other than the actions of various sock accounts that might be impersonators + Andy's contact, who effectively contradicts their own record and isn't the subject anyway. As for Govindahari, their argument was not actually based on the subject's preference but on their own preference, as is evident from their own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"nothing here to verify which one she prefers" other than a statement from Parliament that Keegan herself prefers the newer image; and a tweet from her about the older image that she regards the earler image as a "Terrible photo of me...think I will peek from behind a fan next time.....! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and the fact that the image has been replaced on the Parliamentary website. Above, Sitush wrote "If she doesn't like it, get the official photo changed" and "If she doesn't like it then get another official photo taken". This is exactly what has happened; the older photo is no longer on the Parliamentary website; and the newer one has been uploaded in its place: https://beta.parliament.uk/media/hNwrafgD Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been replaced - you're looking at a different website to the one that was referred to earlier. I agree that her twitter account said she didn't like it. I don't agree that this means we have to change it, nor that any comments here from newly registered accounts are necessarily her. Indeed, Lvta (talk · contribs) claimed to be a constituent before being blocked as a sock. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new, official image has replaced the disputed image on Parliament's website. There is now no parliamentary web page using the disputed image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the "pink photo" because I sincerely believe that it is a better portrait, and both are freely licensed. I lack a personal opinion about the woman, and am expressing an opinion only about the photographs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too - I much prefer the "pink photo" because I simply believe that it is a better portrait for the infobox. I don't see a consensus for keeping the current photo now, I am seeing mutiple good faith objections to its continued insertion Govindaharihari (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that some others here may have a "personal opinion about the woman". I certainly don't: I've never even voted, in a UK election for example. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the more recent (pink) photo (as Cullen), and understand the subject's wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a clear consensus here for the pink photo and I will replace it. 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No you won't. You can open an RfC and do it properly. You are forgetting comments made at the BLPN thread that you opened, which included people who have yet to comment here. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Only in death's RFC suggestion is probably the best way to resolve this once and for all. I do not agree that the posts on this talk page are clearly in favor of one image, so getting more feedback from the community at large would be better. Both images seem equally acceptable to me in that neither particularly disparages or glamorizes Keegan in a manner which requires immediate removal. This should not really be about one side winning, but rather both sides coming together to try and figure out what is best for the encyclopedia. An RfC may bring up points which those involved in this discussion so far have failed to notice, and it will create a stronger consensus. Another benefit is that it might have an impact beyond this article and provide some clarification to infobox photo use for other MP articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - image to use

The consensus is to use the pink image, File: Official portrait of Gillian Keegan - v2 crop 2.jpg.
Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we use the "pink" or the "green" image in this article? - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink, per comment above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also Pink, loud and proud, it is clearly the better portrait, face on and square to the camera. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is also a second version of the "green" image, cropped per someone's suggestion at WP:BLPN - see File:Official_portrait_of_Gillian_Keegan_crop_3.jpg. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the images at right. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of FFS, this was clearly resolved, above. The subject finds the 'green' image upsetting; the 'pink' image is preferred by her, has replaced the earlier image on the Parliament website, and is perfectly good for our purposes. Use the latter; and drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green - Far better, and Prime Minister approved and not clearly resolved above FFS. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green. At the time that this issue first arose, the choice was green or nothing. Since then, a beta version of the parliament website shows the pink photo while the "live" official version (for want of a better phrase) shows a third "white" photo. She doesn't appear to use either herself either, but green is used at TheyWorkforYou and Women2win, which she chaired until recently. It is also the one that I've seen in at least a couple of newspapers - although, in fairness, that was some time ago, I've not seen the pink used anywhere yet. Nothing in BLP says we have to pander to someone's vanity, although we do have to consider reputational damage and suchlike. While there was a Twitter message saying that she didn't like the green one, nothing subsequently has appeared other than a bunch of socks claiming to be a constituent and a mysterious contact that Andy has with Parliament, which isn't her. Since the sock accounts were definitely lying about some stuff beyond simply their identity, (a) I wouldn't put much faith in them and (b) I don't see why we should roll over and open the floodgates to potential further external pressure from that source. All that aside, the green photo, especially the cropped third version I link to above, is clearer because the pink one has a massive shadow on her face. Despite what Govindaharihari says, her face seems to me to be full-on in both. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pink, per the subject's Twitter message that she doesn't like the green one, and the fact the pink one has replaced it on the parliament site. Since the two are, frankly, comparable (the massive shadow covers, what, the corner of her mouth?), the subject's wishes make the difference. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has often been said that I observe more than most people because of being born profoundly deaf - sensory compensation. Perhaps this is one of those occasions! Regardless, it is a lot more than the corner of her mouth. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink. Better composition, subject's face is more prominent, better quality and likeness overall. The "green" portrait has more "attitude", but attitude doesn't serve the encyclopedic interests of illustrating the subject in the most straightforward and informative way possible. The "pink" portrait does that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pink - Personally, I think either one could be used however, I prefer the pink since the photo was taken straight on as opposed to her shoulders being turned. Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pink - I also feel that either image can be used, but since the licensing of each file is no longer an issue and unless there is compelling technical reason for preferring one over the other, I guess it comes down to local consensus. Both photos were taken by the same professional photographer who was specifically hired to do this job for all the MPs, so it's not really a question of skill or lack thereof. Personally, I think the pink one is slightly better since Keegan is more or less facing the camera as opposed to facing left and turning her head to look back at the camera; I also don't think that the shadowing others have pointed makes the encyclopedic identification of the subject any more difficult. Furthermore, simply wanting to use the green photo because Keegan does not want it to be used does not seem to be a good reason in and of itself.

The socking, meat puppetry, etc., that went on over this image is quite unfortunate, but those accounts have been blocked accordingly and all that nonsense actually reflects much more badly on Keegan (assuming either she or those connected to her were behind it) than the green photo ever did or could. Moreover, while I understand the concerns some may have about any future COI editing problems if Wikipedia "gives in" in this particular case, any further disruption can be dealt with in the same way. FWIW, if Keegan or those connected to her are following this discussion, they will hopefully opt to follow WP:BIOSELF, WP:COI and even WP:PAID (if applicable) from here on and refrain from directly editing the article except as explained in WP:COIADVICE because the community does have limits when it comes to assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Pretty much per MarchJuly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pink (Summoned by bot) I feel the pink one is composed better. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 13:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pink - Well originally I was gonna say green however looking at both images in the infobox the pink one looks a lot better - I can't physically explain it but it doesn't look right in the infobox ... –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.