Talk:Johnson Beharry

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Military Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Many thanks to Burgundavia and everyone else who so quickly put in such a good job on this. What a credit to you and Wikipedia! Thincat 12:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to include yourself in the above! :-) --Death phoenix 13:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Anyone notice the interesting picture at the top of the article? I can't figure out how to remove it...

Valour

Considering that most of those awarded the VC were killed in action, this really means something. Fair play to him. Fergananim

Perhaps a military photograph would be better than a civilian one?

Proper image

File:VC Beharry.jpg

Johnson Beharry in front of a mural of the Victoria Cross

(cc to the image talk page)

Hey all, I uploaded and inserted the image on the right. I obtained it from the British Ministry of ~~Defense~~ Defence web site, where I read their copyright notice, which seemed to make it fine to use, and I also tagged it under the {{CrownCopyright}} tag.

However, looking at the CrownCopyright template talk page, it seems that the Ministry of ~~Defense~~ Defence is specifically mentioned as a web site that we can't use, and its copyright information can be found here. Is it because Wikipedia is sometimes used (by mirror sites) for commercial purposes? If so, maybe someone else can find a similar picture that is properly covered under Crown copyright that we can use instead. Thanks, Death phoenix 02:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Pedants Corner: Ministry of Defence is spelt with a "C" Titles do not change when they cross the Atlantic in either direction. Dainamo 09:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fine, Ministry of Defence. --Death phoenix 23:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Deleted my unecessary comment - I shouldn't be so testy about these things.) --Death phoenix 00:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I was the Pedant in question (and I intoduced myself as such to avoid being a smartass/arse) may I suggest that under United States law (which is the home of Wikipedia) the use of the image would surely be "fair use" but should have a tag as not to be used elsewhere without permission of the original source (any commercial mirror site therefore uses the image at their own folly). Additionaly the appropriateness of the use of the image would lead me to say that even in the UK, the MOD would not be so fickle to pursue against its respectful use in a non-profit making arena. I say put it back! Dainamo 00:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I read "Pedant" later and then knew I was being too testy. I blame my real life stress for that. Thanks for the feedback, I'll change the copyright tag (or add on a fairuse tag) and put it back up once I'm satisfied about the copyright. --Death phoenix 02:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. I added {{fairuse}} and a further statement to the image. Thanks for your feedback, and I apologise for my earlier testiness (I normally employ British spelling as well, so maybe that added to my testiness). --Death phoenix 02:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has been revised at one point to make it "less POV". Isn't this stretching the notion of NPOV somewhat to the extreme? As far as I understand it NPOV is all about putting both sides of an argument. Here, there is no argument about his bravery, so what's the problem in descibing it using suitable language? Arcturus 12:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)