Talk:P. W. Botha

PW was called die groote krokodil - the big crocodile, not the old crocodile

Discussion regarding image

Discussion copied from here

Copyright violation

Image:PWBotha.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation An image that you uploaded, Image:PWBotha.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

EdwinHJ | Talk 14:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, EdwinHJ. I uploaded Image:PWBotha.jpg under the template {fairusein|Pieter Willem Botha} from BBC website [1]. No-one has challenged this "fairusein" template. Which leads me to ask: who, exactly, suspects this is a copyright problem?

This uploading was made about one week after the previous image of P W Botha (that had been there for six months or more unchallenged) had been peremptorily removed from the Pieter Willem Botha article after what seemed to be some vandalism.

The postage stamp image that you have now apparently inserted depicts P W Botha as a rather benign character. That is not the image that most customers of Mr Botha and his apartheid regime would want to retain. If you have a problem with either of the two earlier images (pre-postage stamp), would you like me to upload another more suitable image?Phase1 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the image from the BBC would constitute fair use. Obviously, I am not a fan of Mr Botha, but official type portraits are often used on Wikipedia even for evil leaders--see Adolf Hitler for example. Using a poor image of Mr Botha to obtain a certain effect and reaction from the reader would be POV however. And, as I said, it is possibly violating the copyright of the BBC. Thanks EdwinHJ | Talk 13:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

END OF COPIED DISCUSSION

Orphaned image?

Hi EdwinHJ, aside from any copyright considerations the image I uploaded from the BBC is nowhere near as good as the original image which J.J. uploaded on February 25, 2004. When the image was uploaded J.J.—who created the Pieter Willem Botha article—asserted that it was a "public domain government portrait". The best solution, as I see it, is to get the original image re-uploaded by J.J. to replace the current postage stamp image. I am in touch with JesseW, who deleted J.J.'s Botha image on December 10, 2005, with a view to getting the portrait restored or re-uploaded. Meanwhile, I think it is preferable to treat "Image:PWBotha.jpg" as an orphaned image for automatic deletion within 7 days, rather than as a possible copyright violation which could have wider implications and raise a number of unwelcome issues.Phase1 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image is validly marked as a copyright violation, because it appears to be a photo copyrighted by the BBC and used without permission. The orphaned image tag would not be appropriate. The current image may not be ideal but has the advantage of not being someone else's work used without permission. EdwinHJ | Talk 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original "Image:Pwbotha.jpg" re-inserted

Edwin's postage stamp image has now been replaced by the Official Government Portrait photo of Botha, which was re-uploaded earlier today by J.J. who was the originator of the Pieter Willem Botha article.Phase1 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new image looks good, thanks for your dedication to keeping the article looking nice. Hope you don't mind that I also added commemoration of Mr Botha's election as state president photo. EdwinHJ | Talk 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Pieter Willem Botha → P. W. Botha

Follow example of C. S. Lewis and Tim Pawlenty/Skip Humphrey to use most commonly called name rather than purely legal name. EdwinHJ | Talk 13:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support we should use most common form of namme and that would be PW Botha. EdwinHJ | Talk 13:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose The current "re-direct" arrangements are robust enough and, indeed, are specifically designed to deal with EdwinHJ's perceived nomenclature problem. Ergo no need to move—just re-direct!Phase1 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There may be examples where commonly used names are more appropriate than legal names (especially with regard to pseudonyms), but in the case of initialisms, having a full-name title seems convenient. I imagine one of the most commonly-asked questions regarding Botha is, "What does the P. W. stand for?", and I support letting the article title (in conjunction with the P. W. Botha redirect) answer that in bold letters at the start of any search. Xoloz 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Slashdot comment

See this comment by one of this article's editors on slashdot criticising wikipedia. --Pamri • Talk 16:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where's this edit war in the article history? I don't find it, nor there is anything on the talk page. Alfio 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]