File talk:AudacityofHope.jpg

• Image:AudacityofHope.jpg fair use in Barack Obama? See this edit, plus talk page discussion. Thanks. --HailFire 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the book cover doesn't need to be used in that article. It's a minor, trivial part of his life. Usage on the book's article page is completely okay, but there's no need to use it on his biography article. MECU≈talk 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, and I agree. . . but I'm trying to develop a general test for bookcovers on author pages (which seems to be a common area of dispute). If a person is best known for writing a particular book, and that book is discussed at length in the article, would the book cover be acceptable on the author's page? (e.g. James Frey, A Million Little Pieces) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nonfree guideline allows cover images "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." You would expect an article about the book to have more than enough critical commentary about it (though at least once I removed a non-free image from a long-existing two-line stub because I felt it failed this requirement). There's no serious critical commentary of The Audacity of Hope itself in Barack Obama. It's used as a reference for some items about his personal life, but the only content about the book itself is the two sentences in the "Books authored" section. Even these might not count as critical commentary since they are about publication details of the various book editions. Therefore, I don't see how use of the image is justified. nadav (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a case can be made for inclusion on the basis that this is how the man is merchandising himself -- the book is his most detailed written values and themes manifesto for his election run; and it has been on the bestseller lists for 33 weeks, at a time when he is seeking his party's nomination. More widely, I think there is generally a strong case for including covers of autobiographies and personal manifestos on the author page, since the core content of the book coincides with the core subject matter of the article -- to that extent the article is a commentary on the subject matter of the book. If the image were captioned "The Audacity of Hope -- Obama's personal manifesto for his 2008 nomination run", I would have no hesitation in allowing it. Jheald 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that caption, I still wouldn't allow it. I don't see how the book cover improves readers' understanding of the article. howcheng {chat} 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including the image increases readers' understanding of how Obama is presenting himself through this key piece of campaign literature, and underlines its importance. It is not simply decorative. Jheald 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Find secondary sources to support this and I'll accept your reasoning. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • New York Times: Mr. Obama’s new book, “The Audacity of Hope” ... is much more of a political document. Portions of the volume read like outtakes from a stump speech, and the bulk of it is devoted to laying out Mr. Obama’s policy positions on a host of issues, from education to health care to the war in Iraq. Chicago Tribune: a political biography that concentrates on the senator's core values. It's his election-year personal manifesto. How is there any doubt about that? How is this not one of his key pieces of campaign literature? Jheald 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great! Put in the article and we can close this one out. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. Jheald 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yay! I love it when we can legitimately make images acceptable to use. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kudos to Jheald and Howcheng. Sometimes one little idea can make everybody happy nadav (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know, now that I look at it more, there's already an article for the book, which somehow I didn't notice earlier. Given that, it seems kind of pointless to have the image in Barack Obama. I'm going to sidestep this whole issue and move Jheald's edits into book article, where they really belong. howcheng {chat} 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. --HailFire 21:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For Barack Obama, FUR was agreed upon at the discussion page for this image, based upon the following evidence of its necessity in the article about his life.

• From the New York Times: "Mr. Obama’s new book, “The Audacity of Hope” ... is much more of a political document. Portions of the volume read like outtakes from a stump speech, and the bulk of it is devoted to laying out Mr. Obama’s policy positions on a host of issues, from education to health care to the war in Iraq." And from the Chicago Tribune: "a political biography that concentrates on the senator's core values." It's his election-year personal manifesto. How is there any doubt about that? How is this not one of his key pieces of campaign literature? Jheald 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully, we can allow this to stand now. I'm uncommenting it back into the article, based upon this explanation. Bellwether ^B_C 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and, I believe, citing that critical commentary is enough to justify the image. Apparently, with the image only in place to show the book itself, the rationale was not acceptable. However, if the image is commented upon (as it appears to be), then I think it passes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--HailFire (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]