Talk:Philippe Pétain

dutch version

the Dutch version has a much more complete and as far as i found out, a much better discussion, of Petains role in the First World War. If I find time I will provide a translation, though I am not a native speaker so my Duglish will need some correcting. Hugh van der Mandele, Harlingen, the Netherlands.

I removed the sentence from the world war one section that stated "His advocacy of a defensive strategy contributed to the construction of the Maginot Line." Petain was most definitely not an advocate of a defensive strategy, particularly during the interwar period. He imagined an initial "soaking up" of a German attack, followed by a vigorous counterattack, and assented to the Maginot line because lack of manpower, cash, and political will made maintaining sufficient troop strength impossible. His first conception of it was a series of "lighter but unbroken prepared battlefield" (Williams, 2005). Sort of a "kill trap idea- hardly an addiction to static defence. Yet another example of this article factual difficulties. p97dav45 19:54, 5 January 2006‎ (UTC)

New infobox image

My proposal

We should change the lead image to this. It feels like more of a formal photograph, it’s clearer, it has better color balance, and it’s less messy around the edges. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think that the present one is actually better in every aspect you mentionned. And it is perhaps one of the most known portraying of Petain. ✦ Cocorico Polynésien – ✉ ✦ 12:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Agree: It is a formal photograph, it’s clearer, it has better color balance, and it’s less messy around the edges. The current image has Pétain with almost a sneer, making it less suitable for our encyclopedia. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Unverified 'I am your leader' quotation removed

Four articles in en-wiki including this one have the quotation, "I am, and remain morally, your leader" (example from this article in context: "he maintained in a letter to the French people that 'I am, and remain morally, your leader'."). Examples include:

• Philippe Pétain added in rev (973249661)
• Sigmaringen enclave (diff)
• Government of Vichy France (diff)
• Liberation of France (diff)

All of these edits include content translated and adapted from the French article fr:Philippe Pétain, where the content containing Pétain's quotation in French was originally added 00:49, 27 August 2006 by French IP user fr:83.113.203.32 (talk · contribs) in revision 9635959 (diff), which included the following text:

Le 20 août 1944, le Maréchal fut enlevé et emmené contre son gré à Sigmaringen en Allemagne, où s'étaient réfugiés les dignitaires de son régime. Une fois de plus, il ne tenta pas de résister, et ne songea pas à démissionner, maintenant dans une lettre aux Français la fiction selon laquelle "je suis et demeure moralement votre chef."

This edit does not include any references, but in 2006 that was not unusual in en-wiki, and even less so in fr-wiki. In any case, I haven't been able to verify this quotation. There are three books I found that do contain the original French quotation word for word, but they date to 2018, 2019, and 2021, and there is surrounding content in those books that looks very similar to the surrounding context in the French article of 26 Aug. 2006; so much so, that either the books copied from the 2006 version of the French WP article, or the French article and the books are all based on a source earlier than 2006 that I have not been able to find in Google books or in Gallica.

Given this situation, I am removing this content from the four English articles listed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. The three books that contain this quotation are Deloeuvre (2018) Lormier (2019), and Lormier (2021). These are all pretty similar to French Wikipedia 2006 (perma , diff ). I see nothing in Google books prior to 2006, nor in Gallica. Some sources that could be checked for such a quotation, or a similar one are:

• Rousso, Henry – Un château en Allemagne : Sigmaringen, 1944-1945 (1980) bnf
• Schillemans, Gérard-Trinité – Philippe Pétain, le prisonnier de Sigmaringen (1965) bnf
• Brissaud, André – Pétain à Sigmaringen (1944-1945) (1966) bnf
• Rousso, Henry – Pétain et la fin de la collaboration : Sigmaringen, 1944-1945 (1984) bnf
• Assouline, Pierre – Occupation : romans et biographies (2018) bnf
• Kupferman, Fred – Le procès de Vichy : Pucheu, Pétain, Laval (2021) bnf

Lormier (2019) cites footnote 24 of the book for the quotation, but I can't see the footnote page. If someone had it, we could check. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a resource request at WP:RX. Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Given follow-up investigations, I think we can declare this question resolved: the citation is most likely a fraudulent invention of the IP who first added it at French Wikipedia in 2006. In any case, one cannot prove a negative, so if at some time in the future a legitimate citation for this supposed quotation turns up in a reliable source, please add it back into the article, ping me, and notify WT:WikiProject France. Just please beware of sources that are Wikipedia mirrors, circular references, and any later sources that repeat or summarize the unreliable comments at Deloeuvre (2018) or Lormier (2019) or (2021); a pre-2006 source would be best. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Marshal of France Title

This article states that, "After his conviction, the court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honours including the distinction of Marshal of France." However, the article for the Marshal of France indicates (without a source) that the distinction of Marshal of France was not stripped due to it being granted as an Act of Parliament, and thus stripping it was outside of the jurisdiction of the court. Further down in this article, under his list of honors, "Marshal of France" is listed saying both that it was his sole award that was retained after his treason conviction, but that it was also withdrawn following his treason conviction. This doesn't make sense unless there is supposed to be more color indicating that Parliament had stripped him of this title.

I don't have access to the source that is cited by this article to confirm that it supports the claim that the title was stripped from him after his conviction, so I'm not going to make any changes to this article. But if anybody has access to that source, could they review it and adjust this article if necessary? At the very least, the listing of awards at the bottom should be more clear about whether or not he retained the distinction of Marshal of France. Ovenel (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

According to the French article he was subject to Indignité nationale which included the loss of all military ranks or distinctions, and the French article on Marshal of France also has him being deprived of the rank or title. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have raised this interesting and important point at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Pétain's degradation. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I remember noticing this as well some time ago, and started to look into it, but I don't recall anymore what I found. I *think* I found sources in disagreement, but I don't remember for sure, now, and should have tagged it at the time. Step one should be: check the sources again, and if they really are in disagreement, then start by adding the {{dubious}} tag to both, with a |reason= param linking the other, and very briefly stating the disagreement, and with param |1= of the {{dubious}} tag pointing to this discussion. (If they're not in disagreement, then obviously just fix the wrong one.) Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also note that his gravestone bears the title "Marechal de France". This suggests that he retained it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, or step two if you like, is that a resource request should be issued for existing source Varaut-1995, which is the source listed in the article before all the edit-warring on this point began without referring to its content. To request access to a particular book or resource you cannot access, please go to Wikipedia:Resource request. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been able to read most of the relevant chapter in google books preview. I found no explicit claim that he lost the title of Marshal. And the author keeps referring to "le Maréchal" afterwards. I've looked at a number of books at internet archive as well. None of them was explicit about whether or not he retained the title. But people kept addressing him as Marshal, he was buried in his Marshal's uniform (although the French government apparently objected to this) and his gravestone bears the title. I found no evidence that any separate action was taken to strip him of his title. If he was stripped of the title, it must almost certainly been by the verdict. The verdict was simply (leaving out the reasoning):

Par ces motifs,
Condamne Pétain à la peine de mort, à l'indignité nationale, à la confiscation de ses biens.
Tenant compte du grand âge de l'accusé, la Haute Cour de justice émet le voeu que la condamnation à mort ne pas exécutée.

So it seems to come down to the question of whether Indignité nationale affects the title or not.

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a good narrowing of the question, but as Wikipedia editors, we cannot make that call. If we can't find a source that clearly states it one way or the other, we should remove the statement entirely. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged the claim as {{dubious}}, and linked this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring and verifiability

The question of whether Pétain was or wasn't stripped of his "Maréchal de France" has been the object of slow edit-warring for at least several months. At 23:36 on 24 May 2023 Le Petit Chat attempted to settle this question by adding this cairn.info url in rev. 1156852454 referring to the Varaut (1995) article, but the warring has continued, because the Varaut article on cairn requires university or other access. Le Petit Chat, can you please access the cairn resource again, and add a |quote= param to the footnote in section § Trial in High Court, right after the words, "...including the distinction of Marshal of France", which supports your edit that he was stripped of "Marshal of France" ? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified at their French UTP, in case they have notifications off. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"La déchéance des droits civiques et la confiscation des biens fut acquise. L’indignité nationale fit perdre au Maréchal son grade et ses décorations. La dégradation publique proposée par Stibbe fut repoussée à la majorité, au grand soulagement des magistrats." Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The way I understand it "Maréchal" is neither a "grade"/"rank", nor a "décoration"/"decoration", but a "distinction"/"distinction". So I would not consider this an explicit confirmation that he lost the distinction of "Maréchal". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Random; and thank you, Le Petit Chat for adding that quotation. Afaic, that settles it: Petain was not stripped of his title of "Marshal"; or to be very explicit about it policy-wise: we have no reliable source that claims that he was. I have removed the claim from the article, and am issuing here and now this formal WP:CHALLENGE:

• Any alteration of the article to include an assertion that Pétain was stripped of 'Marshal' "must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[b] the material". Failure to do so will result in removal of the content, and may result in warnings.

Note that "reliable sources" does not include anything found at Wikipedia. Thanks all, Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, you are right, Maréchal is not a rank or a decoration but a title. -- Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the answer is almost certainly no, but cannot currently cite all of the reasons why I say this. French wikipedia contradicts itself on this point and I have spent as much time trawling through BNF and Gallica and Légifrance as I am willing to put into this point.

But here is an explanation I believe to be correct. The title of Maréchal is historic and was revived after World War I to honor Pétain and Foch. Historically one became a Maréchal through legislation, but after World War I it was awarded by the President of France through a decree. That's the part I can't find a cite for, although it my defense it's a rather obscure point. But here is why it matters: It seems that whether by decree or by legislation, the title is awarded by enacting a LAW and presumably it would take another law to remove it. That's the important part, and here is the part I am sure about: French judges cannot make law; it's an important difference between the civil and common law systems [1] On reflection, I am not certain that the various legal databases of the French government go as far back as 1918, because I put a fair amount of effort into trying to find the decree that made him a Maréchal. Hope that helps somebody. The short answer is that degradation would probably have stripped him of any public office, but that is not what "Maréchal" was. And yes, I saw sources that referred to him by that title even when he was in exile Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: may know more Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion, but I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the intricacies of French law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

However, I have found this article in Foreign Policy: « Macron Finds the Immoral Way to Remember World War I », which discusses Pétain's legacy, and gives this : « After a postwar tribunal condemned Pétain to death, de Gaulle commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. And while Pétain was stripped of nearly all his titles and honors, he was allowed to keep the title of marshal of France. ». The article is written by David A. Bell, professor of history at Princeton, so seems a reliable source. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/09/macron-finds-the-immoral-way-to-remember-world-war-i/#:~:text=After%20a%20postwar%20tribunal%20condemned,title%20of%20marshal%20of%20France. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"The authorities allowed him to be described on the death certificate as 'Philippe Pétain, Marshal of France' rather than ‘Philippe Pétain, without profession’, as originally intended."[2] I don't think this proves anything, but an interesting tidbit. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. Bell's Foreign Policy article is pretty definitive that he kept the title, right? The gravestone is certainly supporting detail. Dégradation, that stripping that Bell is talking about, involves loss of the rights of citizenship, to vote or run for office, I am fairly certain. I know Mathglot and I discussed it before but I do not remember if either of us wrote or translated an article about it.

Part of the fun of the post-war period is that they set up a whole separate court system for collaborator and war crimes trials. I believe a French court tried Petain (vs. Nuremberg proceeding} since De Gaulle commuted the death sentence as the court asked him to. Also, one of the sources emphasizes that it was a criminal trial. I initially thought it must have been a military matter, but as noted above, it was just an honor, like Poet-Laureate. And received with the enactment of a law, even though theoretically it also made him the commander-in-chief of the French Army. Heh. Just there for the flourishes, I guess, like the Governor-General or for that matter the British royal family. That sentence would have put him out of office if he had been prime minister or president or mayor or dogcatcher, however. That is *my* best shot at this.

The thing with Macron btw has to do with an anniversary and the fact that Pétain (l'héros de Verdun) received the title of Maréchal because he was a genuine war hero). So some were saying that he deserves to be honoured as such and others think that senile at the time or not, war hero or not, anyone who was in office when little children were rounded up at Vel d'Hiv and put on a train for an internment camp does not need to be honored in any way at all. Elinruby (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also a new book out that may cast light on the issue: Julian Jackson, France on Trial: The Case of Marshal Pétain. I don't have access to it, but it may cast some light on the effect of the court's verdict. The review in the Economist mentions that it was a civil court with a special jury of 24: 12 veterans of WWI, and 12 politicians from before Vichy. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

huh, a civil court? I will take a look at that again. Julian Jackson is the current authority on Vichy though, according to something I just wrote for a different article. I wonder if they mean administrative. but I expect Jackson and the Economist got it reight for at least some definition of "got it right". That's not really a question; I'll figure it out if it looks like I need to for the other article I am working on. There were special courts for collaborators but I suspect he would have had special handling if only for security reasons.

Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it was the same High Court that tried the other collaborators, like Laval. I meant "civil" in the sense of "non-military": not a court martial. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. I was thinking of the giy who was going to jail for selling butter outside the official system> Tribunal national, something like that? Neither the English nor the French wikipedia seems to have an article on it, in any event. I also read yours to mean "not criminal" so thank you for clarifing for me. I also found [[3]], which talks about the prohibition on retroactive law and how that's limited to criminal law... not done reading it yet. I have been mumbling about a French admin law glossary, or I would have wandered off by now. Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has some information about the Haute Cour, see fr:Haute_Cour_(France)#Haute_Cour_de_justice_(Gouvernement_provisoire_de_la_République_française) and fr:Épuration_à_la_Libération_en_France#Haute_Cour_de_justice. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Statesman?

[copied from a User talk page]

Someone added "and statesman" to this lede paragraph:

Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Pétain (/peɪˈtæ̃/, French: [filip petɛ̃]); 24 April 1856 – 23 July 1951) was a French military officer and statesman who commanded the French Army in World War I and became the head of the collaborationist regime of Vichy France, from 1940 to 1944, during World War II.

Philippe Pétain was more than a military officer, but — unless "statesman" is generic and non-judgemental in Wikipedia (is Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Idi Amin a "statesman"?) — is there a better-focussed and less-loaded term for his rôle as Chef de l'État Français ? Or is any term needed when the lede sentence ends, "and became the head of the collaborationist regime of Vichy France" ?

@Mathglot: @Elinruby:—— Shakescene (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Worthwhile question... For the time being, I've reverted it, because whatever the right word is, 'statesman' is certainly not it. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sword and shield theory

Neither this article nor Vichy France mention the sword and shield theory. This was an important analysis of Petain's behavior during Vichy, and it rates inclusion in both. Many think the theory is rubbish now, but it had enormous influence at the time. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede Image

Which of the following images should serve as the lede image for the Philippe Pétain page?

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C

Emiya1980 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Paulturtle, Mathglot, Aumnamahashiva, Srich32977, M. Armando, PAustin4thApril1980, Rrostrom, Havsjö, The Image Editor, CocoricoPolynesien, and BeenAroundAWhile: In light of the interest you have previously expressed regarding Philippe Pétain's infobox picture or (in the alternative) the significant extent of your past contributions to this article, you are invited to take part in a discussion regarding which picture should be selected as the page's lede image. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts belowEmiya1980 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Three editors took part in the previous discussion about this, so pinging @The Image Editor, CocoricoPolynesien, and BeenAroundAWhile:, although only one is still editing (just barely). As for me, the current image seems sharper, more contrasty (so easier on the eyes), and, of course, is in color, making it the best one on several counts. Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mathglot regarding colour etc, but otherwise I think A or C, since those are from the times of his "peak fame" (as Commander of the French Army in WW1 and Head of State in WW2). Him in a suit during the 1930s (when he did nothing of particular note) is a strange choice to use as his "face" for the article/infobox. I would also say him as Head of State of the entire (well, half...) country (i.e. A) is also "higher" and more "deserving" of being the main picture than commander of "only" the military --Havsjö (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think he's probably best remembered for his role in Vichy nowadays, but WW1 is perfectly accceptable as well. Paulturtle (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of C. Whereas A is an artistic recreation of the subject's appearance, C is a photographic which better captures Pétain as he appeared in real life.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to not use image A. The keep decision at Commons (see subsequent discussion) is not binding. The English Wikipedia has its own policies, including the image use policy, which requires affirmative proof of public domain status by the proponent of an image. That policy is similar to the precautionary principle on Commons, which provides that "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". In this discussion, Compassionate727 provided a significant doubt about the assertion of the public domain status of image A: no evidence has been presented that this was a Vichy France government work that was administered by the Alien Property Custodian. If such evidence is presented, I will overturn my decision. Between B and C, there is no consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Philippe Pétain? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A. For me, the current image is the better option as it is in colour and has better quality. This allows viewers to pay more attention to details. However, picture C is also a good option. - Luna Cielus Luna Cielus (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C

Emiya1980 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A: I think Pétain is most known for his role in the Vichy regime which eliminates the WWI-era image in C. On the choice between A and B, I think A wins out because Pétain's wartime cult of personality often emphasised depictions wearing the kepi. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A per Brigade Piron. People recognise him by his hat; in image B he looks like any old boring politician from the 20th century. And image C draws attention to his success as a military commander instead of his role as a dictator and collaborator, for which he is notorious. Trakking (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not B; it is a run-of-the-mill, could-be-anybody picture. While i disagree with Brigade Piron above in that Pétain is well-known for his WWI activities as well as the WWII collaboration, so C would be acceptable, A is the best choice ~ it illustrates his appearance, it shows the kepi, and it is a clear image. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A: simply the most clear.Moxy🍁 21:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A I really don't understand this obsession with creating RFCs about this topic. Are we approaching 10 the past couple of months? Almost all of them ending with the same way. There's nothing wrong with the status quo. Nemov (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait—has there actually been 10 RfCs about this particular Infobox picture? Alexysun (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun No, on various other biographies. There's a few open at the moment. Nemov (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A: High quality, colored image during the most prominent point of his lifetime. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Support C if A gets deleted from Commons ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose A per the commons file description, "this work may not be in the public domain in the United States". We cannot use such images on English Wikipedia per copyright policy, which supersedes local consensus. It's unfortunate that many commons images break their own copyright policy, but that is a different conversation. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you believe the photo is ineligible for commons, then it is prudent to nominate said file for deletion on commons itself. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with Commons is that deleting images is hit or miss because there are a significant number of users who don't agree with some of the copyright policies. See below for an explanation of why the image is not out of copyright in the US, which is the only thing that matters for enwiki copyright policy. Please keep in mind that, if you are adding an image to an enwiki article, it's not enough for the image to be hosted on Commons—you must verify that it follows all English Wikipedia copyright policies. (t · c) buidhe 13:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

•  A  Immediate procedural close, best quality, most typical. If the image is not in the public domain, that is a complete deal-breaker for this Rfc, however: I am not a lawyer, but 1) "may not be in the public domain" is not a deal-breaker, and 2) my recollection is that copyright holders must defend their rights or they lose them (like Bayer lost "aspirin"). The Commons page offers a clear invitation to any copyright holder, if they exist, to apply to have the image removed, and explains how to do that right on the page. Until that happens, I believe we are free to use the image. The image has been there for three years, is in use in 27 Wikipedias, and six articles at en-wiki, without apparently eliciting any complaint. If there is a question about copyright, anyone may raise a question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC) updated to 'Immediate procedural close'; see comment below. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  If there is doubt about the copyright status, it is assumed to be copyrighted. Technically the precautionary principle is a commons policy, but in this case there is no evidence it is public domain according to us law—it doesn't seem like the French copyright would have expired by 1996 which it would need to be public domain here.

  There are millions of Commons images up for years that don't satisfy the copyright policy. Don't trust an image being on Commons because most encyclopedia editors and Commons users know nothing about copyright expiration.

  Patents are lost if not enforced, but that is not the case with copyrights. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment nobody here (afaik) is a U.S. copyright lawyer, and imho, this Rfc cannot go on while there is an unresolved issue about a policy with legal implications affecting this Rfc that no one here is qualified to comment on. I will request an immediate procedural close of this Rfc on this basis, as I see no way for a closer to evaluate a consensus in the current circumstances. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 Hi Emiya, I'm interested to know what you have against the current portrait, or the reason you brought up this as an RfC? Currently the photo is A. What is wrong with photo A in your opinion? Alexysun (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun: According to MOS:LEADIMAGE , "lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic." I think both B and C serve as more "natural" representations of Philippe Pétain than an artistic portrait clearly designed to lionize him as a statesman. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 Dumb policy tbh in my opinion. Are they going to remove Churchill's picture now? Literally called The Roaring Lion. Alexysun (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun: The image to which you are referring is a posed photo taken of Churchill, not a hand-drawn portrait as in the present case. I should also point out that Churchill's legacy is significantly less ignominious than Pétain's. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 I doubt it's hand-drawn. I'm assuming it was originally taken in black and white and filled in with color manually. Alexysun (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Alexysun In that case, the original black-and-white photograph would be preferred. That's my opinion anyhow. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, besides the copyright issues with this image, I don't agree with color for its own sake, only if the color is from the original photograph and an actual representation of the subject's appearance. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that "natural", in the WP:LEADIMAGE style guideline, is meant to imply "doesn't lionize him as a statesman". The meaning is closer to "not overly contrived". Where senior politicians are concerned, an official portrait that "lionizes" them is "appropriate".

The same sentence in the MOS that says "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" goes on to say that they should "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Official portraits are definitely used for similar purposes and fully comply with the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I cast my vote for C. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: A has just recently been nominated for deletion on copyright grounds. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'd recommend withdrawing RFC. A simple discussion can sort out a replacement image if A is deleted. Getting everyone to change their votes would be more of a time sink. I'm fine with whatever that discussion produces. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this RfC still happening? Has the image changed? Someone has described A as a portrait, but presently I am seeing a photograph. If the options have changed, then the RfC votes are now inaccurate?Brocade River Poems (She/They) 18:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• A - the current image is by far the best quality. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment You see the problem with assuming Commons keeping an image means it is OK to use for copyright purposes. In the discussion, one of the admins noted for disregarding Commons copyright policies decided to close as keep, despite evidence to the contrary (compare his statement to what it actually says in c:COM:PRP). It's irrelevant whether the copyright holder can be located or plans to enforce their copyright. Any comments here that don't address the issue of whether the image is free to use according the US copyright law (per WP:Copyrights) should be discarded by the closer. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you believe there's an issue with the deletion decision you should look into to challenging the close. Your opinion about the close is rather irrelevant in regards to this discussion. Nemov (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what decision is made on Commons. We can only use the image here if it complies with English Wikipedia copyright policies, which is not the case—and nobody has even made a policy based argument why it is. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I also think it bears mentioning that a clear majority of editors (4 to 1) voted in favor of the image's deletion prior to this admin's decision to unilaterally close the discussion and make a "keep" ruling. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980, just fyi: the discussion is not closed, it is open, and anyone may feel free to continue discussing. If it were closed, the whole conversation would be boxed with a rectangular border and shaded background color, along with a statement at the top that the discussion is closed. Since none of that is present, the discussion is not closed.

What has happeed, is that the Rfc reached the standard expiry age of one month, which triggered Legobot to remove the Rfc header in this edit. At some point, an uninvolved editor may come along and close it, and until that happens, anyone is welcome to add their thoughts.

Finally, if in mentioning that "an admin" decided to close it you were referring to User:buidhe, they are not an admin. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am speaking in regards to the deletion discussion on Wikimedia Commons concerning the lede image, NOT the Rfc. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This close was disscussed in more detail here[4] and it appears there's a consensus to keep the image. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that it is unlikely that Petain's lede image will be deleted in the foreseeable future, can somebody go ahead and close this Rfc?Emiya1980 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• I was originally planning to close this, but after receiving advice, I will instead vote not A.
  I think there remain difficult questions about whether this work is public domain both in France and the United States despite the relevant Commons discussions. On the French side, it seems unclear that this work meets the criteria necessary to enter the public domain 70 years after publication. The information box asserts that the author is anonymous, but I see no indication of this at the source, and while the identity of the author is unknown today, this is quite distinct from the real requirement that their identity must never have been disclosed. This is more difficult to establish, and I see no evidence establishing it. On the American side, I am dubious that {{PD-US-alien property}} applies. It is clear that the image in question is a colored version of https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10336769n/f25.item, and while it is plausible that the Vichy government held the copyright to the original photo (though this remains unproven), I doubt the French government colored it, and I suspect that coloring a black and white photograph is sufficiently creative to grant a derivative copyright (although input on this point would be appreciated) which the US government would not have seized.
  Although enwiki doesn't explicitly have an equivalent of Commons' precautionary principle, policy does forbid linking to works you suspect contain copyright violations (WP:COPYLINK); it is surely implicitly forbidden to directly use such material. The closer of this discussion needs to make a determination about the copyright status of this work, and given Commons' extensive problems, I don't think simply saying "it was okay with Commons, and that's good enough for me" is an adequate examination of the issue. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the copyright situation, it may or may not be helpful to note that the English Wikipedia only requires an image to be in the public domain in the US; while the copyright status in France is an issue for Commons, we can even host images that are free in the US but not in their country of origin here locally. So at least any copyright discussion at the English Wikipedia can focus on American copyright, while the argument of anonymous publication or not should be moot for use at the English Wikipedia. Felix QW (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.