Misplaced Pages

THIS edit was the prompt removal of the colorized photo presented in the infobox. This 1903 event happened in color. It was experienced and witnessed in color. The main reason for presenting the info here in black&white is because of a technology limitation which existed at that time. Well that limitation has now been removed.

The rationale presented for the revert was this:

"A link to colorized version for the curious would be ok, but misrepresentation in the article not ok for most famous aviation photograph."

That would be a sound argument for an article which placed its focus on the photography aspect instead of the event itself. The John T. Daniels entry is one such article. This one about the Wright Flyer is not a photography article. If life happened in black&white, then we could say that color is a misrepresentation. But knowing that nothing in real life is seen by human eyes in black&white, then it becomes clear that the original unrestored photo is the "misrepresentation". More accurately, it under-represents what actually happened. It is for this reason that the better version to present in the infobox is the colorized photo. I would suggest that...

"It is those who are more interested in the history of photography who can do the one extra click to find the black&white version."

This exact same argument stands for the parallel revert which happened HERE by the same editor, DonFB. I recommend that all discussion of this issue be consolidated here, as I see it to be the same argument, with more harm than benefit happening by splitting the discussion across these two articles. In both places, the colorized photo has been re-added to the bottom of the articles. This was done as an interim measure. The end goal is clear consensus being established. --Wright Stuf (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A very nice work of art, the placement near the end of the page or maybe in the gallery, identified in the caption as colorized, seems fine. Should definitely not be the lead image in the infobox though, as it is essentially a faked image (i.e. the color of the sky, why is it such a light blue?). The original black and white photo is the iconic visual descriptor of the event. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Restoration serves encyclopedic accuracy by showing the photograph as it originally appeared, whereas colorization imparts an appearance which the photograph never had, misrepresenting it. In effect, colorizing is an editorialization, contrary to neutrality policy. You said: "The main reason for presenting the info here in black&white is because of a technology limitation". No, the reason for presenting it in black&white is because that's a correct representation of its actual appearance as a world-famous artifact. I believe it's inappropriate for the encyclopedia to manipulate it or any historical image in an attempt to recreate what an editor believes real life looked like. The encyclopedia is obligated to present historical information and imagery without distortion or editorializing. DonFB (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Colorizing the photo involves many subjective decisions and the end result will vary very noticeably according to who carried it out. By contrast, the black & white photo or lightly edited versions of it faithfully represent the original document. This original photo is part of the history of this airplane. The fact that the brothers had someone there to take it, that the flights were meticulously recorded etc. is an integral part of the story and the success. For those who want/need better visualization of the airplane, there is a 3D model available. I think the colorized version, in spite of Wright Stuf’s hard work producing it and good faith addition, does not really belong to the article at all. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy. I'm glad you like it. Ariadacapo, I'm glad to know that you too appreciate the effort. This was my first attempt at photo-real colorization. (Or rather, my second attempt. Back on December 16 & 17 of 2018, right on the heels of completing the b&w restoration project, I tried to dive straight into this colorization project. It failed miserably. I think that was because I was burned out at that moment, and did not have the necessary patience reserves. Yesterday's effort was a full success, but admittedly short of perfect.

The question at hand here is whether addition to these articles as factual is appropriate and helpful, or damaging.

Sky lightness has been called into question. One thing we can be certain of is that the sky was not grayscale. So even if the hue is off, it is certainly closer than the black&white image. But you specifically asked about the lightness of the sky. Here we have proof of exactly how light or dark the sky was, because this is what black&white photography captures best: brightness. Cognizant of the historical importance of the photo, I made the effort to not manipulate brightness values, concentrating on hue. This way, you can take this colorized photo, do a quick single step desaturization, and return to the black&white image with essentially no alteration. Brightness, including the lightness of the sky, is preserved.

DonFB: "Restoration serves encyclopedic accuracy by showing the photograph as it originally appeared..."

I am the one who did the 2018 b&w restoration. I expect you're aware that an entire corner was broken off. To fill this in, I had to make the editorial choice of what to put there. Every single dab of the "cloning tool" is an editorial choice, deciding where to repeat pixels in order to remove damage. I made countless hundreds, probably over a thousand such fabrication edits which deviate from what has been historically preserved.

Knowing that you are accepting of editorial choices within the realm of black&white restoration, let's revisit your objection to editorialization in the conversion to color:
If this process is done in a freewheeling manner, then I would READILY AGREE WITH YOU. "Was his shirt blue or brown? I am going to take a random guess."

The position I am presenting here is that editorialization during the colorization process is factual when we have sufficient knowledge of what the original colors were. We know that sand is tan, wood is brown, the sky is blue, their suits and shoes and hats were very dark. These are all HARD FACTS. It is possible to do editorialization with such care that the output is historically accurate. And I submit to all three of you that this is what has been accomplished here.

There is not much room for freewheeling when it comes to how tan sand is, how blue the sky is, how brown wood is, how dark clothing is. And when it comes to the flyer itself, we have the rebuilt aircraft in living color, along with several exacting replicas which enable us to verify the correct colors. This was done with the level of care that meets encyclopedic standards of presenting factual info. If it did not, then I would not have presented it as such.

A similar principle holds when converting a 2-D source image to '3-D" stereographic. Guesses need to be made. But these are highly educated guesses which are based in fact. We have a solid understanding of how to keep the manufactured output true to reality. We KNOW what this moment in time looked like to John T. Daniels. And we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that what he saw was a lot closer to what I posted than it did to the historic b&w photo. Once again, this is an article focused on this event. It is not an article about historically significant photos. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I should also have replied to this:

Ariadacapo: "Colorizing the photo involves many subjective decisions and the end result will vary very noticeably according to who carried it out."

YES. I readily agree. The healthy approach, once someone offers an alternative colorization, is to then debate which one is more accurate. NOT "...well then, let's throw them all away." The proverbial colorized baby/bathwater adage.

If you've done any photo post-processing, including perfectly linear edits from which the original can be recovered, then you know that 10 people will turn in 10 different images. This goes for EVERY SINGLE PHOTO PRESENTED HERE ON WIKIPEDIA. Cropping is one such huge decision that 100 editors can result in 100 different output. Many times, these results are radically different.

The proper way to deal with these variations and inconsistencies is to adequately document what was done. NOT "Well, these aren't the same so let's throw them all away." Wikicommons makes it a breeze to track how a photo has been cropped or color balanced by various editors. It is likewise very easy to keep colorization documentation transparent. Click on the example here, and you can see that this was done. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What I have been advocating here is perfectly in line with how Misplaced Pages on the whole works.
If the attitude was "Well, this isn't a perfect article, so let's trash it and never show it to anyone", then Misplaced Pages would never have gone anywhere. But it is a HUGE SUCCESS not because it achieves perfection at any moment in time. Rather, the success is in this PROCESS which facilitates continuous improvement.

If John T. Daniels had taken a color photo, NO ONE here would be arguing for the deletion of that to replace it with black&white. The crux of these objections have more to do with the accuracy of the colorization process. Ironically, the position you three have taken here amounts to:

"Let's block the process of continual improvement. The old way is the better way."

So the bigger question to ask is why are you here on Misplaced Pages at all. With this attitude you're championing, I would expect that your encyclopedia of choice would be World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. Dealing with paper cuts as an acceptable risk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Attack the ball, not the player. Treating other editors with respect is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. The historical accuracy of the event includes the iconic photograph, which you also provided in an alerted by less-changed form. This is the image that the world saw which introduced humans to the concept that their species was now skybound. That is the value of leading off the article with the black and white - it has resonated in the collective memory for almost 120 years. I approve of using your color version on the page, it is worthy of encyclopedic exhibition. Just not as the infobox introductory image (although I can see your point and partially agree that it would be useful, just not a guarantee of an totally accurate portrayal). World Book still exists? I know Britannica is online and awash with ads. Misplaced Pages is where the encyclopedia game is nowadays, and your interest in improving it with good images is commendable. I'm glad to see the colored version, like it a lot, but it's not the iconic and historical photo (and hard to believe that the sky was so pale blue in 1903, especially above the ocean). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came across as attacking anyone. I was actually hoping you all might get a chuckle out of the papercut quip. And I thought that the notion of reverting to old school book versions of encyclopedias would be obviously facetious. What I was trying to do with that last post was zoom out to the bigger picture. MUCH larger than just these two articles / one photo being discussed. My point was that what is at issue here is actually a philosophical question, impacting Misplaced Pages across the board. And since photo colorization has been around a lot longer than Misplaced Pages, we could expect that our topic at hand was settled policy from well over a decade ago.

I just now looked it up, and apparently World Book DOES still exist. And maybe pigs have begun to fly as well. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I even snuck a racism joke in there. I probably should apologize for that too. There is nothing funny about colorized babies. Black or white. Pick a lane and stay there. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Struck my comment, I wasn't taking you in good faith. Humor sometimes doesn't come across when written, now that I know it was written in good faith the papercut mention is pretty good. And I looked up World Book too, seems to be still running and put up a new edition in 2019! Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wright Stuf, I've added your image to the Hand-colouring of photographs and Photograph manipulation pages with hopefully an adequate caption. They look good, and are relevant to the topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, THANK YOU! --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wright Stuf: You said: The position I am presenting here is that editorialization during the colorization process is factual when we have sufficient knowledge of what the original colors were. We know that sand is tan, wood is brown, the sky is blue, their suits and shoes and hats were very dark. These are all HARD FACTS. It is possible to do editorialization with such care that the output is historically accurate. And I submit to all three of you that this is what has been accomplished here. These are highly presumptuous comments. "Historically accurate"--according to what reliable source? "Tan", "brown" and "blue" are the most generic of descriptions of sand, wood and sky, but are no substitute for the undetermined reality of a given scene. You don't know if the sand was FFDAB9 or EEE8AA or FFE4B5 or FFDEAD, or if the sky was ADD8E6 or 1E90FF or B0C4DE or 87CEEB or whether it even was clear, blue...or overcast. But these are mere details. The overarching point I'm making is that it's not appropriate for an editor to arrogate to themself the role of proclaiming a "historically accurate" depiction of anything, especially not by radical revision of a world-famous image. You may think it is accurate. I think it is mere imagineering. You have argued that the articles are not about the "history of photography". My response: that's a non-sequitur. The purpose of the articles is to present accurate encyclopedic knowledge from reliable sources, including knowledge represented by photographs in their original form, or, at least, not radically manipulated to create a vision that springs from an editor's assumptions. In keeping with my original suggestion that a link would be ok, I won't object to image placement in secondary positions like See Also or a Gallery, but I could never support complete exclusion of the iconic b&w photo from either article, nor its placement anywhere other than in leading or context-appropriate positions. DonFB (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is steered completely off-track. This is a search for consensus about replacing/including one image. We don’t want walls of text, nor lecturing of other editors about what Misplaced Pages is about. Wright Stuf, please focus. Thanks. --Ariadacapo (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I need to apologize yet again. For wasting everyone's time here with my "wall of text". I had expressed my expectation that this must have been an issue resolved long ago. I just now found this to be true. Please see new subsection below. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Colorization of historical photos - Consensus was established way back in 2014

As it turns out, we have an exact parallel to the issue being discussed here:

  - Use of a colorized historical photo in the infobox,
    -- Ensuring that it is properly labeled as such,
  - Keeping the black & white historical version in the article which is focused on photography.

Here are the articles from where our issue here was discussed and settled back in 2014:

  - Article focused on event/person using colorized historical photo in the infobox: Ilia Chavchavadze.
  - Article focused on photography/photographer keeping the historical black & white version: Alexander Roinashvili (photographer).

This is exactly parallel to our case here with the Wright Flyer article focused on the event, and the John T. Daniels article focused on photography.
Had I found this earlier, I would not have wasted anyone's time (my own being most important to me). This matter was closed more than six years before I opened it. Based on this long established and extremely stable consensus which has endured throughout that entire period of well over 2,000 days, our article here has now been fixed. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please link the consensus, I'm not seeing it. There is a two person discussion on the Chavchavadze talk page, one says it's a fake photo, the other disagrees and that's how it ends, with the photo being used. "Extremely stable" consensus is incorrect if this is what you are pointing to, as this very discussion above overturns that non-established consensus. Maybe a full RfC is needed, or maybe I'm missing the consensus you're talking about, but as of now the colored photo, no matter how interesting and reimaginingable informative, should not be used in the infobox per this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In that article, there are a minimum of 4 editors who directly weighed in on the topic: Paul Barlow (edit here), Centpacrr (edit here), Damianmx (edit here) and Jaqeli (edit here).

On top of this, there is tacit agreement from all other editors who made changes to this article without voicing objection to its most prominent image, which is clearly labeled as colorized.

And on top of those countless dozens of editors who expressed their consent by way of silence, there are the untold THOUSANDS of readers who saw this image, each one of them with the ability to remove it, or voice objection to it. So consensus in this case arguably involved a rough estimate of maybe five figures worth of people.

I can also provide links to places outside of this article where the colorization issue has been thoroughly discussed. But those threads do not relate near exactly as this one Ilia Chavchavadze case does, so I would be risking branching too far off-track for some here, starting into another wall of text. (Ariadacapo, I need to thank you in particular for providing me with the motivation to do the deep search that was necessary to find this example. I knew from the start here that established precedent would be the most definitive way to resolve this issue, but I was too lazy to do the needle-in-haystack hunt.) But those other lengthy discussions I was able to find were quite fascinating... because those folks presented the exact same type of arguments we have been rehashing here. I'd be glad to share for anyone who wouldn't see this as a waste of space.

Now those who may not like what has been established here on Misplaced Pages, I'd like to suggest that the new fix for the Wright Flyer article is actually the best of both worlds. No one even need *click* anymore to view the historical b&w photo. It's now been set up where a reader need only *scroll over* the photog's name and the b&w image pops up, without even leaving the article. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Here I was being lazy again, saying "maybe five figures worth of people". The precise number is 100,000+ Page Views. (page stats: ~51 ave views/day) (period spanning 2337 days)

And the precise number throughout that period were ~140 Total Edits, incl ~27 minor edits. (Hard stats here). --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Of the four editors you said weighed in, two removed the digitally colored image and two replaced it. No consensus exists in that exchange. The consensus in this present discussion, so far, is to keep the historical and iconic black and white image. Besides, the image you're pointing to as the overriding consensus is not historically important in terms of being an internationally known multi-generational iconic image. Good work in finding it though, you're very persistent and that's an admirable trait in a Wikipedian (makes the other editors have to come up with the best arguments). You picked an iconic photo to make this point, and that, I agree, is the way to go to give the concept air and get it out in the open. Maybe an RfC is the way to play this, but I think it would end up favoring the iconic b&w over the nice but questionable "maybe true colored" rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a decision reached at the biography of Ilia Chavchavadze has foundational relevance to this article about the first successful airplane. The monochrome photo is historic, while any new colorized version is not. If someone's colorized version is discussed widely in the media, then we could conceivably include it. But that isn't happening. The policy I'm leaning on is WP:WEIGHT in which minor issues that are peripheral to the topic are shed due to their lack of central importance. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I readily agree that the Wright Flyer photo carries orders of magnitude greater historical importance than some obscure guy who did some things. December 17, 1903, was a SINGULAR MOMENT in human history. Down to the split second, this photo has captured the singularity: The very start of humanity's first airplane flight. Nevertheless, PRECEDENT has been established. And precedent operates on PRINCIPLE. The issue is not big vs small. It is wright vs wrong. 'Right', in this case, meaning being in accord with established Misplaced Pages principles. More succinctly, Being 'right' scales.

That is to say, what is 'good' for the tiny case must also be good for our ginormous case.

I will recommend 2 strategies for anyone wishing to overturn this established precedent:

- Find a counterexample which fits the parallel outlined above. If you succeed in finding a case where consensus went the other direction, rejecting the colorization, then we will NO LONGER BE IN A STABLE STATE here. It will be conflicting consensus which will need to be resolved.

- Another approach would be for you all to go to that Talk page where six+ years of consensus has gotten entrenched... and work there to get this precedent re-evaluated.

Now there is a 3rd Option which would be ideal: Create clear WP. But I have no idea how Misplaced Pages Policy comes into being. Rub Jimmy's head or something.

Randy: "Of the four editors you said weighed in, two removed the digitally colored image and two replaced it. No consensus exists in that exchange."

Actually, it does establish consensus. For the moment, let's ignore the 10s of thousands who decided to tacitly agree with no one outside of these two editors objecting. Those two assented to having their edits reverted. They did this by not persisting against the reverts. SILENCE CONSTITUTES AN ABSTENTION against voting down the change. And this very act of not acting... or rather, giving up their objection is what created the consensus. Centpacrr presented an extremely strong argument for why the proper action was to keep the colorized version, and to this day NO ONE has replied there to refute those excellent points.

Consensus on this issue was asserted on 15 September 2014 at 22:04. Every single edit action since that moment has served to quicken and solidify CONSENSUS. There was one sole exception: More than a full year later, at 22:30 on 25 December 2015, Damianmx did a revert to what by that point in time had become a very stable situation. NO rationale was presented. Damianmx was promptly reverted. And THAT WAS THE END OF THAT. It is now more than 5 years later. Countless 10s of THOUSANDS of people have weighed in on the matter... by not weighing in.

Centpacrr might as well have closed off his Talk post with, "Speak now, or forever hold you peace." As you all know, I happen to see the established consensus to fit with the basic principles which guide us here as Misplaced Pages editors. And this brings us to the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT rebuttal. This is a classic example of WP being misapplied. A policy is delineated for one set of circumstances... than an editor attempts an impressive contortionist backbend in an effort to get words to fit into a situation it never applied to. The overarching Policy is NPOV. Colorization is not a Neutrality issue.

But let's say that we are Olympic caliber rhythmic gymnasts, and we wish to attempt the backbend anyway... Let's go for it. Well here is a quote from the first sentence from WP:NPOV:

"All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Well we KNOW perfectly well what John T. Daniels' POV was at this instant. It was asserted early on here that he watched this moment in Living Color. The focus of this article is on the event. So our bent over version of WP:NPOV actually DEMANDS that the color image be presented. To argue otherwise would require evidence that he was totally colorblind. But then the person behind him witnessed this in full color. So that angle fails too.

Now let's scroll down to UNDUE. Well here is a quote from the first sentence from that section:

"...each article ... represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint..."

Here too, yet again, we have Zero Evidence that anyone witnessed this historic event in monochrome. Time to call the ambulance because our heroic gymnasts have broken their backs. We can now clearly see that the b&w infobox is the version in violation of bent WP:UNDUE. Absolutely no one, as far as known reliable sources tell us, witnessed this event in monochrome.

Let's close here with a point I expect WE CAN ALL AGREE ON: The fundamental underlying issue is Lack of Specific Policy Guidance. Consensus needed to be dredged from an obscure corner of the Project. Sufficient. But not ideal. So I once again point to Option 3 above, for everyone wishing to accomplish a reversal of long-established Consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One more comment on the earlier Policy quote: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias..." I readily agreed early on that the colorization process includes INHERENT BIAS. But this goes back to the baby/bathwater point. Comparing which version has less bias from how the event was witnessed, the b&w is like trying to enter a turtle in the Indy 500. Black&white is but a speedbump in the road of progress. The tried & true process which makes Misplaced Pages great. We are looping around the Brickyard in a cycle of continuous improvement, on the whole. The turtle gets to the Winner's Circle in the Turtle 500. And b&w photos likewise rise to the top in articles which focus on photography. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"I do not like the established consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."

I expect everyone here is perfectly clear that the words in quotes above do not fly here on Misplaced Pages. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Give it up. Drop the stick. You don't have anything close to a local consensus here at this article. Some sympathetic thoughts have been directed your way, and some very stiff opposition. So the result is: no colorized photo. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"The turtle gets to the Winner's Circle in the Turtle 500." That's pretty cool, did you make that up? Can't find in on the net. Of course there is no consensus here to include the colorization as the lead image, although it too is pretty cool. Are you saying WP:IGNOREALLRULES should apply? I'm a fan of that one as well, but in this case the historian in me (he likes pancakes) sides with the established iconic black and white image. I may owe an apology though, just watched a film set near and on the ocean, and the sky was light blue like your image. So you say the color values in the coloring process read it out as light blue? Interesting. You've done some great work on Misplaced Pages, and it's obvious how much you believe in the outstandingness of the colorized image. I like how you fight until the last bell rings. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wright Stuf, in your first response to my reversions to the black&white historic photograph, you ended by writing: "The end goal is clear consensus being established." That has happened. One editor favors the colorized image to be leading or exclusive: Wright Stuf. Four do not: RandyKryn, Ariadacapo, Binksternet, and DonFB. You have misunderstood consensus on Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages policy on consensus refers throughout to discussion by editors. The word "reader/s" does not appear on the page. Consensus on the content of Misplaced Pages articles is achieved by editors, not readers. Furthermore, no rule directs that consensus in one article must transfer, migrate or automatically apply to any other article. Consensus is achieved on each article, separately. Only the consensus that created or revised a Policy or Guideline applies to all articles. I think you may need more experience on Misplaced Pages to gain a better understanding of its functioning. DonFB (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Replying to all three...

I have been editing Misplaced Pages for an extremely long time. I have done multiple visits to Misplaced Pages Headquarters, including the obligatory photo standing next to the Puzzle Ball.

DonFB: "Consensus on the content of Misplaced Pages articles is achieved by editors, not readers."

My statement was perfectly clear that Consensus over there was established by 4 editors.

Countless dozens of other editors supported it. Then I went further to explain that 5-figures worth of potential editors likewise provided tacit support. Through their choice of not editing. Feel free to drop this last category if you don't care to consider potential editors. This leaves you in the rough neighborhood of ~100ish editors who did consent to the colorized infobox. And the total of ACTIVE EDITORS who support the consensus just today JUMPED FROM 4 UP TO 9 now. Because while the 5 of us have been editing this Talk page, NONE of us have switched that infobox back to b&w. All 5 of us here have cast our votes by way of inaction.

9 editors. Plus ~100 other editors. Ignore this if you want. But it is a HARD FACT. Consensus on our issue is established fact. 6+ years now.

DonFB: "Consensus is achieved on each article, separately."

Now you are making stuff up. I will be tickled pink if you can support that statement.

And I will be the first to admit that I MADE UP this concept of consensus established in one article carries over to an article debating the same essential situation. The huge difference is that I supported my position with logic. I didn't bother with digging through WP on this because common sense prevails here. "Do we need to reinvent the wheel every time we need to get rolling?" Obviously not.

Randy, I'm not here to fight. But then again, I won't refuse to engage, like a wussified Maverick post-flat spin.

I actually was ready to concede to Viper's flight of 4 editors as being no match. "B&w infobox it is." That's where I was at. But then I watched that 4-ship formation (you can be the flight leader) dive straight below the consensus hard deck. The extremely unusual case where 1-vs-4 results with the solo pilot flying off into the sunset, while the commanding officer of the four opposed editors is in the awkward position of writing letters of condolences to the next of kin for the four.

The Hard Deck is an inviolable rule. Hence the "Hard". Consensus on Misplaced Pages is itself a rigid guideline. But as you point out, we happen to be equipped with the IAR Trump Card. (Post-Jan6, that card needs rebranding.) Let's call it the IAR Joker's Wild. Except I see you three to have pulled out the Joker here. Absolutely nothing I posted before was done with any thought to IAR. It is a card we all have, yes. But not one to be played lightly.

The proper use of IAR is this...

When all other Policy fails, and you have justification to take an action which results in improvement to an article, THEN you have license to IAR. It is not to be used lightly without the sound justification for an out of the box exception.

Here, with this one photo, we are squarely inside the box. Colorization is an issue which impacts hundreds, if not thousands of Misplaced Pages images. The problem is that the walls of this particular box are invisible. No policy on colorization has yet been published. Not that I can find, at least. So we must do our best gauging of the walls by using other methods. And I was actually SHOCKED to find Consensus established in a case which perfectly matches ours.

Bottom line: The totality of policies we have to go by show that you three are the ones below the Hard Deck here. I don't know where the fourth wingman is right now. Consensus is not... "Let's do a count of hands: Ok, 4 here, 1 there." Consensus is not democratic rule. Consensus has more to do with PRINCIPLE. Which answer conforms best to policies that guide us. Centpaccr presented a SOLID case for colorization. We have a case here which fits neatly within the box they built over there.

What you four amount to is, "Let's reinvent the wheel." But we were handed a wheel which works quite well.

It is absolutely clear that the proper course of action is for all 5 of us to regroup. ABOVE the Hard Deck. This means revert the Infobox back to color, and conform to long-established Consensus. Any notion of "local consensus" grates against the principle of Broad Consensus. Which all of us follow in alike circumstances. Like it or not, Ilia IS that parallel case.

And yes, I originated the Turtle 500 thing. I've probably taken all these analogies way too far. I sure hope you all like Top Gun. I was thinking that was a safe one, seeing how it is an aviation page which brought us all together. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to take a step back for a while to let this breathe. I am absolutely clear on what the next step here needs to be. Explicitly stated above. I hope that when I return, I find that the dough has risen. (First turtles, now baking. Yikes.) Goodbye for the time being. I have built another wall big enough to satisfy DT. That's definitely reason to take a breather. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

TL, DR

Wow, Misplaced Pages:Wall of text! A colorized picture always scream "fake". It should be avoided. This is an encyclopedia, not a fantasy.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair summary, IMHO.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

PoV-pushing

Wright Stuf (talk · contribs) is very blatantly pushing their personal point of view (PoV) on Misplaced Pages, having first started messing with this image in 2018 shortly after creating their account. We see here classic PoV-pushing behaviour in responding to criticism not by WP:LISTENing but by wp:WIKILAWYERING and piling up WP:WALLS of text. A very clear consensus of "No, thank you" has emerged in the above discussion. This needs to end now, before it becomes WP:DISRUPTIVE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Graphic Violence Warning

(Inserted- Your input is being requested here:
  DonFB, Ariadacapo, Binksternet, Marc Lacoste, GraemeLeggett, Steelpillow, RandomCanadian, Ahunt, BilCat and clarification from Randy Kryn. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I am going to ask everyone here for a momentary reset. Let's forget about the Wright Brothers...
Let's say that all of us here are interested in Thích Quảng Đức, the Vietnamese Buddhist monk who lit himself on fire. We are faced with making the editorial choice on which of these two images to present in that Misplaced Pages article:

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4740894482/Monk-color-photo.jpeg

I am calling on every one of us here to vote. A simple one word answer is sufficient:
   - monochrome, or
   - color

I will vote last. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, similar to the Wright flight, the colorized version (if it's colorized and not an original) gives more information but is not the historical iconic black and white photo which is also a Misplaced Pages feature image. Colorization may have its place, and on the other hand there is Ansel Adams. Iconic images align more with Ansel Adams (although he did play with the shading and other aspects to create his artistic photos), they have their own history and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So, monochrome. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Two different articles, with no correlation. Very different historic photos. I'm not participating in this sideshow. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

TLDR

Hello, people, a massive discussion like this over a colourised or black and white picture seems entirely unecessary - its a goddamn picture, not a question of life and death. A massive WP:TROUT for everyone seems well deserved. If this much discussion can't solve such a petty detail, then it's time for a !vote or something else, cause clearly this is a waste of time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Assume good faith, as this discussion has resulted in some good edits elsewhere, and to some editors it is not a petty detail. Massive trouts need plenty of water to swim in, and Misplaced Pages discussions like this are all wet. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:RandomCanadian here. This is very simple and clear issue and does not require massive walls of text. Also the massive walls of text are discouraging others from bothering to participate as they know that any posts will be meet with more massive walls of text that are not worth getting drawn into. We have been over this all before, colouring photos is simply WP:OR and doesn't go. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

On second look, it looks like User:Wright Stuf might be (inadvertantly, though can't be sure) engaging in WP:BLUDGEON: since this debate started, the talk page has doubled in size from just under 50 kB to just under 100 kB, and simple maths from their contribution history give at least half of that amount. I suggest they let others express themselves, or at least not feel compelled to offer a detailed rebuttal to every editor who opposes them. As for my opinion on the whole thing, it is usually the fact that the historic event is depicted with the usual black and white picture (plenty of things are depicted in black and white without that causing problem). In fact, if I may, colourblindness is a thing, and some people do experience life in not "full colour". I don't see why us non-colourblind people would suddenly complain about being restricted to a black and white picture, especially such a well known one. I've always found colourisations to be more interesting from the "computer gimmicks" point of view than the "restoring historical artefacts" one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look. :) BilCat (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, my persistence here has been founded on the principle of established Consensus. One which I am conforming to, and you are refusing to follow. In that light, if anyone is being bludgeoned here, it's me. I have expressed willingness to take an extended leave of absence from this entire discussion, and you come back to this section to say, "I suggest they let others express themselves". That is exactly what I announced. I was offering 10.5 months of you all choosing to go against Consensus, unopposed by me.

As for colorblindness, I had addressed that long ago here. Just scroll up a long ways. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental issue: LACK of Policy guidance

Ahunt: "We have been over this all before, colouring photos is simply WP:OR and doesn't go."

Perhaps you've been over it. But I haven't. And I've searched. The string colo (which covers colorization/colourization) does not appear one single time in WP:OR. Nor does colorization/colourization appear one single time in WP:Image use policy. This is the best I've been able to find...

WP:OR#Original images:
"It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion."

Everything I have been advocating here conforms with WP:NOR completely. That's NOR as published. Not NOR as imagined. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wright Stuf, I suggest then that you ask for a policy clarification at Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy. The consensus here is clearly against using the colorized image in the infobox, and leaning toward excluding it from the article altogether. There's also no interest in a poll at this time. Given that the colorization is your own work, you also have a clear bias towards using the image that could be considered a conflict of interest. I'd suggest backing off of this article and talk page for a while (probably a month or more), and pursue some other interests on or off Misplaced Pages. Please realize that discussions that drag on like this one has quickly become a time sink to most users, who have busy lives amd other interests besides Misplaced Pages. So please, give it a break, and allow things to simmer down here. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I will be perfectly happy to give this a rest for the remainder of 2021. I will commit to this if only 3 of you vote "monochrome" in the monk subsection above. Randy has already weighed in. If his vote was for monochrome, then my (in)action would require only two more of you. (I would also like you to clarify on exactly where you stand, Randy. One word.)

As for COI, the colorization artist who I am seeking your feedback on is Sanna Dullaway. I am not her. I have never met her. I wouldn't know what she looked like if I did.

As for simmering down, I myself have not detected any signs of boilover. We have been engaged here in respectful, well-reasoned argumentation. I see the merit of your side, and I went so far as to map out THREE proper paths forward for anyone who wishes to contest the Consensus which was established in 2014 over on the Ilya article.

ME request policy clarification? Consensus on this issue was settled a very long time ago. In favor of the edit I have been advocating. For the exact same rationale I was supporting before finding Centpaccr's solid rebuttal. Because of that established consensus, the onus is on all of you to seek any Policy guidance which might have a hope of reversing the longstanding Consensus. FURTHERMORE, if you read my previous post, then you know that my position conforms perfectly with WP:NOR. This ball is in your court. I await your votes. Feel free to LIE up there if you simply want to get me to shut up. But my remaining months of 2021 will be spent knowing that I left here with my integrity intact.

It is all of you who are persistently refusing to follow long established Consensus. As highlighted at the top of that subsection, such behavior simply does not fly on Misplaced Pages.

"I do not like the established consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."

This is simply not how Misplaced Pages operates. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no mention of a Sanna Dullaway on the image file page. From the file: "This image was restored by User:Wright Stuf in November, 2018 using GIMP, and then manually colorized on February 5, 2021, also using GIMP...John T. Daniels (restoration & colorization by Wright Stuf) If you're referring to a different image that you want added to the article, I missed that completely. If so, please make it clear what images you're discussing here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am preparing to exit this discussion. All that is needed is 2 more votes for 'monochrome' in the monk subsection above. Sanna Dullaway is the artist who colorized that. Freakin PTSD inducing, I imagine. If I knew of any other image which could speak so powerfully, I would have used that one. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanna Dullaway colorized File:Wright_First_Flight_1903Dec17_(full_restore_115,_colorized).jpg? that's not in the file information. BilCat (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Scroll up to the Graphic Warning and you'll find the iconic photo of the burning monk, where the photog was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. I found Sanna's colorized version here:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4740894482/adding-color-to-the-most-iconic-photos-in-history

I'm obviously not communicating clearly. But I hope it's all clear now. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would we want to add a picture of a burning monk to an article about the Wright Flyer? And how does that excuse you of a COI for promoting an image of the Flyer that you (apparently) colorized? BilCat (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I NOW finally understand what you were saying in your 21:27, 9 Feb comment above. COI is a curious argument to inject here. Every single change made to Misplaced Pages carries that same bias. The principle you are arguing for here is that:

"Every single edit done on Misplaced Pages should be REVERTED, because the user who posted the change is heavily biased toward their new words."

A most curious angle. But yes, I do admit that I'm heavily biased toward the color image I made. But you can also find here where I've expressed TOTAL OPENNESS to having that image immediately replaced the moment anyone comes forward with anything that gets closer to realism. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the use of a colorized image as the lead image in this article or any other article that is not about colorizing, photo retouching, special effects or closely related articles. It amounts to original research. Go to Google Images, and enter "sand" in the search box. There is wide color variation in sand. I have experimented with colorizing photos myself and enjoyed Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, a masterpiece of colorization. I am not opposed to colorization in the abstract. Even so, I am firmly in favor of using historic black and white photos as the lead images of encyclopedia articles when high quality color photos are not a available. I am also opposed to walls of text and the bludgeoning of discussions. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your comment here could be taken to indicate that you'd vote color for the monk image. Please post up there if you'd like to remove any doubt.

I interpret your position to be that you would Favor colorized here, or at least not oppose, if only we had a better, more realistic looking colorization effort. Please correct me if that's mistaken.

All that said, I readily agree that the colorized Flyer is FAR FROM PERFECT. I am disappointed with in in several key aspects. Wilbur's fleshtones are HORRID. All of the wood tones are off from being perfectly convincing. Etc, etc. This was my first photo colorization. I did it with freeware. There are countless thousands of people who can do a MUCH BETTER JOB. But the argument presented toward the top is that using my far from perfect colorization will PUT US ON THE PATH toward continual improvement (see "philosophical question" & "Turtle 500" above.) --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So, Wright Stuf, your color version now appears in both articles: Wright brothers & Wright Flyer, though not exclusively, nor in a leading position (but pretty darn close in WB). Are you dissatisfied with that outcome? Consensus against your opinion in this discussion is overwhelming. By your logic, that would mean the historic photo in the other article you referenced should now be changed back to b&w. But I'll repeat: consensus in one article does not dictate a decision in another. You can use consensus elsewhere to support your argument, but not to command a result. DonFB (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I make no commands of anyone here.

If the Ilya article was not a perfect parallel in its essence, then I would be the first to agree with you that consensus over there would not apply here. Except that the situation there is the same in all important ways but one. That image has no iconic historical status. And this is exactly why the monk was selected, to help fill this one gap.

DFB: "Are you dissatisfied with that outcome?"

I am THRILLED that the current edits include the colorized version. But I hope it is clear to everyone that the reason this didn't end long ago is because of PRINCIPLE. We either follow Consensus, or we don't. Your question is akin to asking a lottery winner if they're satisfied with the check they received. "So what if the IRS took 90%? You still pocket 10%!" NO. That's not only dissatisfying. If you read the tax code, you'll see that a robbery just occurred. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, forget the monk. I am out of here. GOODBYE, and thank you all for this civil discussion.
Everyone here knows the direction Misplaced Pages Policy points us toward. I am exiting now with full faith in that process. In this principle. My parting comment, believe it or not...

"I Like Turtles." --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A possible solution to the above enclosed box

Since Wright Stuf, as a major participant in the discussion, seems adamant that it should be open, and it probably should be on the strength of that objection alone, then how about this: the discussion is opened in full, and then the page gets archived. Clears up the talk page while at the same time being good-faith fair. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As the person who originally hatted the conversation, I oppose unhatting it. Hatting a discussion is an excepted way of handling extremely long discussions, and all an interested user has to do to see it is to click "Show". (They'll. quickly figure out why it was hatted, and if they don't view it, it's actually saving the OP some unwitting embarrassment.) I'll note for the record that I did not close the discussion, which ostensibly prevents additions or changes from being made. When the OP is ready to continue the discussion, he is welcome to do so. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to Collapsing the vast majority of an extremely long discussion that most will have no interest in. I went along with what I saw to be a legitimate reason for doing so: Help make the section far more accessible by leaving only two tips of the iceberg.

An accepted way of handling extremely long discussion? What is so unacceptable with the solution I promoted?

As for embarrassment...
I am not embarrassed by a single word I've posted. I see my position in that discussion to be extremely strong, perfectly in line with long established consensus, and in line with every single Misplaced Pages Policy I am aware of.*  I did build Walls of Text, but when Policy is missing, it seems like an appropriate reason to build such walls, ideally with the ultimate result in the long run serving as the basis for Misplaced Pages:Colorization which can avert the need for any such walls on any other Talk page in the future. I am actually exceptionally proud of what I've done here, and what it could mean for the long-term future of all of Misplaced Pages. Credit belongs to Centpacrr with the solid argument presented on the Ilia article, which has endured the test of many years now. All I was doing here was applying that same Consensus to this exactly parallel case, only now being applied to a photo of iconic historical status. This one gap between these two parallels was the reason for leaving the Monk Subsection uncollapsed. Because that very short example cuts straight to the heart of the question we all face here:

Is colorization good for Misplaced Pages?

It is a question that was answered in September of 2014, and reaffirmed hundreds of times since then. And here with the monk, it is clearly shown that colorization has the potential to fly with iconic images as well. I actually AGREE with key objections about the colorized Wright Flyer. I dove into the uncanny valley of photorealism. Sanna Dullaway has shown us the Promised Land over on the other side of the valley. She literally takes the Dull-away. So am I embarrassed to champion this role of Colorization Moses? No. Not at all. This is a movement. A movement of what Misplaced Pages can become. Peter Jackson is the Jesus on how to do colorization with encyclopedic accuracy (They Shall Not Grow Old trailer). In case anyone wasn't convinced by Sanna's monk.

* - I may have dropped the ball with one policy at the very end. Or rather, after the end. AGF. I asked anyone to provide a reason for why Full Collapse was preferable to my Tips Exposed Collapse. NOT ONE of three editors offered any justification. I do remain open to the possibility that legitimate justification does exist. --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

TLDR. So if in a later response I miss what you said above, like I did before, that's why. BilCat (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is your personalized TLDR recap (asked rhetorically, as I do not expect to be back to discuss):

An accepted way of handling extremely long discussion? What is so unacceptable with the solution I promoted? --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have said my piece. I will leave here once more. Hopefully on a more permanent basis. I have raised a flag on WP:Consensus ...and most recently on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I will leave it to you all to resolve these MAJOR issues. I will be glad to quickly return just to issue an apology if anyone shows me that I dropped the AGF ball. So goodbye y'all yet again. --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)