Commons:Deletion requests/File:Matthew Paris - William Marshal.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Matthew Paris - William Marshal.jpg[edit]
This Matthew Paris artwork depicts Richard the Marshal of England in a skirmish before the Battle of Monmouth 1233, his father William Marshal Earl of Pembroke died in 1219, long-standing error since 2005. There are many discussion pages to back up the claim for deletion. - REAL TUBE | Talk 00:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. If the file description or name is incorrect, just change it. There's no valid reason for deletion here. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Following the rules states "contradict the arguments supporting deletion" so now proceed to the details User_talk:Storkk which spills over to Wikipedia discussion, if the study of Medieval English history means anything, if validity means anything. The illustrator Matthew Paris romanticized scenes in his histories that take 800 years to correct. - REAL TUBE | Talk 17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I think Celia's implication is that you haven't made a case that "supports deletion" in the first place. As far as I can tell, your complaint is that this is an inaccurate depiction of the actual events. I don't know enough to say how true that is, but you could level the same accusation at some of Shakespeare's historical plays, yet it's unlikely we'd ban material related to them on that basis. I'd have assumed that the Matthew Paris artwork is of historical interest in its own right, even if it isn't accurate per se (something which- as Celia mentioned- can be noted in the description). Ubcule (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The factual accuracy of a 800 year old illustration is not a reason to delete. -- GreenC (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- The present image has promoted faulty history for 14 years plain and simple. From w:talk: William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke ==Chronica Major==
- The likes of Christopher Gravett (Knight: Noble Warrior of England 1200-1600), Suzanne Lewis (The Art of Matthew Paris in the Chronica Majora) and Matthew Strickland (War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy) are all united in stating that the image of Marshal unhorsing Baldwin de Guisnes from the Chronica Majora relates to his son Richard Marshal at the Battle of Monmouth 1233, and not William Marshal. - REAL TUBE | Talk 01:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Great, make that information clear in the picture description and any captions where the image is used. You might even create a Wikipedia article about it. Make it your mission to clarify the traditional story and the revisionist story so people have all the facts. But deleting the image? That is outright historical negationism (look it up on enwiki). -- GreenC (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus would seem to be Keep with possible name change, I pursued deletion because one of the administrators said changing anything controversial could be considered vandalism. Starting the rename process should be imminent, with this discussion as the reason and needing future approval since I have no standing on Commons to do so. I certainly can solve the problem on en.wikipedia if necessary. - REAL TUBE | Talk 17:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment See Commons:File_renaming for procedure. I suggest you first propose what you think a better name would be on the image talk page, File_talk:Matthew_Paris_-_William_Marshal.jpg, in case anyone wishes to comment or has a modified suggestion for title. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus would seem to be Keep with possible name change, I pursued deletion because one of the administrators said changing anything controversial could be considered vandalism. Starting the rename process should be imminent, with this discussion as the reason and needing future approval since I have no standing on Commons to do so. I certainly can solve the problem on en.wikipedia if necessary. - REAL TUBE | Talk 17:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Great, make that information clear in the picture description and any captions where the image is used. You might even create a Wikipedia article about it. Make it your mission to clarify the traditional story and the revisionist story so people have all the facts. But deleting the image? That is outright historical negationism (look it up on enwiki). -- GreenC (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
What the hell?. I have no tidea why I was alerted to this discussion. I have nothing to do with this file. Kelisi (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy keep 13th century historic artwork (in use in multiple projects). Description (and if necessary title) can be changed to give accurate description and explain and correct anything misleading in the artwork. None of this is a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep: This file is used on many other projects, from cy:William Marshal, Iarll 1af Penfro to uk:Граф Пембрук. Under COM:NPOV that renders it inelegible for deletion on grounds of inaccuracy. If the picture is inaccurate that can be noted in the desciption (and possibly in the file name), but ultimately factual disputes should be resolved on Wikipedia, not here. --bjh21 (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Kept, per general consensus, and nominator seems to agree that renaming/improving description is a better course. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
