Talk:CGP Grey

Use of given name

Per request of the subject in this BLP, please do not add his real name to the article. For reference.

Potential reference

Given the BLP primary sources tag at the top of the article, perhaps this Independent article[1] could be added as a reference? --58.8.168.152 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning! That article contains a CGPGrey name spoiler! --IngenieroLoco (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Image

@CGPGrey: Could you please license File:CGP Grey stick figure.png under CC-BY-4.0? It's starting to become a problem since the file is not technically free to use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I also want to discuss if the current usage is truly unacceptable. Genuine question, where is the policy that does not allow non-free images to be used as an identifying picture, and what are the exceptions you mention? The WP:NFCC seem to be entirely fulfilled, hence why I reverted it in the first place. I apologize if I am entirely in the wrong, but I want to be sure before we get rid of an an image that has served the article well for quite a long time now (and has not been contested by the copyright holder who is semi-active on Wikipedia). Also pinging the uploader of the image, IagoQnsi and MJL who seems interested in this topic. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonfree images of living persons are the paradigm of replaceable images barred by NFCC#1, and are explicitly cited as such in the governing WMF policy resolution, as well as applicable en-Wiki policy pages.. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

However, this is not an image of a living person, it is a representation of this person. And to quote the rational from the photo: CGP Grey is known almost exclusively known by his stick figure representation, which is copyrighted by him, so a freely licensed version couldn't exist. A freely-licensed photograph of Grey could be used, but it would not be illustrative in the same way that this image is (because he very rarely shows his face publicly), and it would also violate Grey's request for privacy on the talk page. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with with our nonfree content policy. If this isn't an image of the subject, it doesn't identify him and doesn't belong in the infobox. And this isn't really a privacy issue, but one involving the desire of a public figure to exercise control over the public image, which is not a concern recognized by Wikipedia policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cerebral726: Grey is not all that active on Wikipedia anymore. The simplest solution would be for him to just license this one awfully specific photo for free use. CGP Grey, the subject of the article, is almost exclusively depicted as this exact sick figure (therefore, identifying the subject). Without the logo, I am pretty confident that this image would be considered a {{PD-shape}}. I also think that the logo, by itself, could qualify as that as well.. but both together seem to be enough creative content there to copyright. Regardless...
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I think this pretty clearly qualifies as WP:NFCCP#8. There's longstanding consensus against including the image face of Grey per WP:BLP concerns, so let's not get into that debate again. If this is simply a question of whether or not the image should stay, then I say yes since that is the image fans and the public know him by. To give a rather crude example, the stick figure adequately depicts Grey as much as the self-portrait of Vincent van Gogh. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the image should stay. The reason non-free images aren't usually allowed for living people is that a free photograph could be created which would be able to replace a non-free photograph. But here we're not talking about a non-free photograph—we're talking about a non-free stick figure drawing. The possibility of creating a free photograph is irrelevant (in fact, free photographs are already on Commons)—the issue is that a photograph is not an appropriate or adequate representation in this particular article, for reasons that have been mentioned in previous discussions on this talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Please stop edit-warring. You are the only one here arguing that the image violates NFCC. As I just explained, the image meets NFCC#1 because a photograph would not be an adequate representation of this subject. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus here is to include the image, and the one dissenting user is not responding here on the talk page, so I'll restore the image to the article. If anyone disagrees, please address the points that have been made and gain consensus before removing it again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A local consensus established here on this talk page cannot really override a policy like WP:NFCC. While I think both sides have made some valid points, I also think that the best place to try and resolve this is likely going to be at WP:FFD since that's a community-wide noticeboard and whatever consensus is established there is going to carry more weight. The file should, at least in my opinion, stay in the article until an admin removes it either per WP:F7 or WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)