Talk:Mark Carney: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 2: Line 2:

{{Not a forum}}

{{Not a forum}}

{{Canadian English}}

{{Canadian English}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Carney, Mark|blp=activepol|1=

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Carney, Mark|blp=activepol|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y}}

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y}}

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=high|cangov=yes|ppap=y|nt=yes|ab=y|0=<!– Governor of the Bank of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada –>}}

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=high|cangov=yes|ppap=y|nt=yes|ab=y|0=<!– Governor of the Bank of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada –>}}

Line 14: Line 14:

{{WikiProject Ice Hockey|bio=yes|college=yes}}

{{WikiProject Ice Hockey|bio=yes|college=yes}}

}}

}}

{{banner holder|text=Page history|1=

{{banner holder|=|1=

⚫

{{Top 25 report|Mar 9 2025 (1st)|Mar 16 2025 (19th)|Apr 27 2025 (5th)}}

{{Top 25 report|Mar 9 2025 (1st)|Mar 16 2025 (19th)|Apr 27 2025 (5th)}}

⚫

}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

{{User:MiszaBot/config

MalborkHistorian has swapped out the image in the infobox to one that I personally find quite goofy looking. The previous image is currently being used on the main page, and I think that goes to show that it’s the preferred image. I changed it back, and was reverted by MalborkHistorian. Which image do we think is preferable, File:Mark Carney November 2 2023.jpg or File:Mark Carney portrait February 2020.jpg? I see no policy that says we’re obligated to use the most recent photo, and 2020 is not that far removed from 2023 anyways, so I’d rather go with the older one. MediaKyle (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,
i have to say that i do like the 2020 image, but there are some reasons on why i swapped the image,
the 2020 image that i removed was partly photoshopped, less natural-looking, much older, and also depicts his appearance differently which has changed over the 5 years.
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 14:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you using the phrase “photoshoped”? Do you mean it was simply rotated and cropped, or that someone then edited it further than that to represent it not as it appeared in the actual photo, because they’re two different things. The first is fine, normal and expected, the second is problematic. And no we don’t need to use the most recent photos, there’s no requirement. And we also should treat the submit of a WP:BLP article with respect and not try an use a photo that is frankly terrible. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MalborkHistorian so five minutes after the image swap was reverted again by Canterbury Tail, you decided to go switch it out on simple:Prime Minister of Canada instead? What’s your fascination with this image? MediaKyle (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this has now moved from “I prefer this image” to disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 photo is good. It’s front-on, well-lit, doesn’t capture him with a weird look and overall looks professional. It’s not the most recent photo, but Carney’s appearance didn’t change significantly between 2020 and 2023 (let alone from 2023 to now) to make that a concern… I mean, we were previously using a 2015 photo because his appearance was still pretty similar. We should stick with the 2020 photo.
More than anything, though, I wish these new photos would be discussed before any change is made. There have been several times where someone uploaded a new picture of Carney and quickly started using it on every relevant page, causing extra work for the rest of us when the choice of picture is contested, or the upload is marked for deletion for not matching licence requirements. This 2020 photo is actually the best we’ve had (and it’s available to us) so I’m not upset with that user, but in general, it’d be nice to have these things run by everyone first so we can a) get everyone on the same page and b) avoid having to do clean-up if it doesn’t work out. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a image that was taken at the same day as the photo currently used in the infobox.
unlike the current photo this image is not photoshopped[a] and more natural-looking[b]

here is the image = File:Mark Carney 2020.jpg

𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 20:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The 2023 image is a copy vio. The JM Executive account on Flickr from which the image was sourced states the following: “There was a time when men in business and politics dressed like gentlemen. As gentlemen, we must restore elegance in these settings.  – All images are from the internet or social media and are not owned by this profile.” TheHarveyWallbanger (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he looks best in File:Mark_Carney_World_Economic_Forum_2013_(3).jpg. Can we use that as the main image? In the 2020 image it looks like he just woke up from a nap. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the image looking like he just woke up from a nap, disagree on the replacement, he’s looking off to the left. I don’t know why we don’t just use the image used for him up to this point. TheFellaVB (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily i have another image that i could upload, which is freely licensed.
it was taken at the same time as the 2020 photo which is currently used.
but, unlike the current photo which is partly photoshopped, it is also taken by the European Parliament but more natural-looking and less photoshopped.
it’s more similar to the 2015 photo to be honest.
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 19:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the image if anyone is wondering : x200px
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MalborkHistorian, it’s starting to feel like you’re deliberately trying to get an unflattering image on this article. Please discuss before you change it again, like Kawnhr said. MediaKyle (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 portrait photograph currently in-use is pretty high quality, in terms of resolution and composition (File:Mark Carney portrait February 2020.jpg). Front-facing, no odd faces or heavy squinting or mid-talking. My take is that the best quality image should be used, not necessarily one merely because its more recent. The only edits I made to the photo was a rotation, crop and removed the EU flag from the back. The other options are sort of unflattering and until we get a newer high quality photo, it should stay. Again, just my opinion. Discussions are always welcome and encouraged. If other high quality photos emerge that are better than the current, changes can always be made. PascalHD (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but the photo is also :
less natural-looking,
more zoomed in like an overcropped photo,
less suitable for the portrait format,
and more photoshopped[c]
What’s more, is that in my opinion it’s better to use a more recent photo one mainly because of Carney‘s appearance which looks partly different than from 2020, it’s basically the same if you add a photo of Justin Trudeau as a teenager, what’s more, the photo currently used looks like he woke up after a siesta (no offense), while in the photo that i used which obviously got reverted doesn’t look like that.
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and statements of support of image choice

[edit]

  • Support option A (File:Mark Carney portrait February 2020.jpg) – it’s recent enough that it looks pretty close to how he looks today, is well framed, composed, and posed with a relatively neutral/natural expression, and doesn’t seem to have any copyright issues. Consigned (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit – now that there are options A-H, after my first preference A, my next preferences are D, then E or H. It’s a bummer that D is a bit fuzzy, also I’m not fond of the squinting in E and H (but maybe that’s just how the guy looks when he smiles). Consigned (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, and I would go even further as to say this experience has shown that the choice of image in the infobox of this article and other articles in which the same image is used such as Prime Minister of Canada is contentious. I would propose that at a certain point we should add a note to the infobox and talk page of these articles stating that any change of the image should be discussed before applying it unilaterally, and a change of the infobox image may be reverted and should not be put back at that point without consensus. MediaKyle (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an image from 2025. However, I agree with this. The image has great resolution, lighting, and carries no copyright issues. Executive20000 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — We now have a new image (File:Mark Carney in 2025.png) from Carney’s visit to Washington earlier today. DecafPotato (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see there’s a newer photo available, but it looks out of focus and unsharp PascalHD (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New options have been added. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    H is a pretty good contender, if it were to replace the current. I think it’s well composed and of decent quality to represent the subject. My main issue with it though is the heavy squinting of his eyes, you can hardly see them; that’s kind of what drew me to the 2020 photo in-use, as it’s one of the only photos where he isn’t heavily squinting. I’m conflicted… as a recent photo is certainly of value to the article and is nice to have, but at the same time I feel that unflattering images can be avoided. Ultimately it doesn’t matter too much. Either current or the proposed H are fine to represent him. If only the Federal Government would license official portraits, we wouldn’t need to constantly change it and could just always use the official portrait, like American politicians. PascalHD (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current photo (File:Mark Carney portrait February 2020.jpg) – Fairly sensitive to time concerns but this is a perfectly fine photo until a similarly official/high quality one is produced over the next few months. Nickeleh (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any May 2025 photo (Options D–h) While I understand at the moment we don’t have any portrait worthy photos of Carney, I think the ones taken from the White House are good enough at least and not that poor in quality. I think it’s also a bit important to have an image on the infobox that reflects Carney as prime minister and not an outdated one from 5 years ago. I’d be lenient to support current photo if we didn’t have the photodump from his White House visit, but quite honestly I think the May 2025 should suffice for now. I have a slight preference for option E or H (eh).–TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the May photos from his meeting with Trump are far better than the current photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I think a 5 year difference is too large, even if Carney does not look much different from 2020. E or H seem best. (I also apologize for editing the photo, was not aware a discussion was already taking place.) Dingers5Days (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is getting unwieldy, I tried to solve it by adding a subheader and moving the gallery down. I’m wondering if maybe we should make a proper RfC on this? I think D does throw a wrench into the mix, The current one is nice but there’s something to be said for using the most recent, good photo. MediaKyle (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should use this photo : File:Mark_Carney_portrait_May_2025.jpg and call it a day.
    𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 08:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just make sure you’re serious about this image? Moxy🍁 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes i am 100% serious about this photo, is much newer, more natural-looking, less photoshopped, and more suitable for the portrait format.
    𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 13:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This shouldn’t even be a choice…. but I see others like it so there it is. He’s not changed in 5 years his look I’m not sure why people want this odd looking photo. Hopefully we get a whole bunch of experience editors commenting.Moxy🍁 13:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks. That image has him squinting awkwardly that doesn’t present him in a flattering way. TheBritinator (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support options EFH 2025 photos are the most recent, and they detail Carney as Prime Minister. Out of the five photos from 2025, D has Carney blend into the background around his shoulders, and G has Carney weirdly raise his eyebrows, simply looking like he was not prepared for the photo. Imperatorhobbes (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current photo (A). This still looks like our best option: bust shot, facing the camera, fairly natural expression. It’s five years old, sure, but it’s not policy that we absolutely must have the most up-to-date photo possible, and more than that, his appearance hasn’t meaningfully changed between photos (his hair is a bit more grey, sure). If we absolutely have to update it, D is my preference, since he isn’t squinting (I think that’s just how he smiles, but still) or caught with an odd expression like the other 2025 ones. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support D Most recent one, during his term as Prime Minister, sharp enough and he’s not squinting (I presume he smiles like that which is fine). Bakir123 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo A (current) is fine until an inevitable forthcoming 2025 photo is uploaded to Commons. The concern about the need now for a 2025 photo is somewhat WP:RECENTISM; in time, there will be an excellent one. Let’s just wait for it. Zefr (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A. There’s no need to change from the current photo. Carney looks the same today and it is of a very high quality, almost like an official portrait. The rest don’t come anywhere close in my opinion. Adding a more recent portrait just for the sake of recency when the man looks more or less exactly the same feels like WP:RECENTISM and unnecessary. There is also precedent for using retouched images (see Elizabeth II both before and after her death for one of the better known ones) and the alterations are very minor (just removing the flag of Europe it seems). —TheHarveyWallbanger (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ In case you are wondering, if you look at older revisions of the file currently used, you will notice that there is a EU Flag which was removed at the next revision
  2. ^ His eyes are green in the image while in the other one they are blue
  3. ^ I get that it’s just the EU Flag and some parts in the top right, but still it isn’t the same
  • Since the summary seems to be a status report, not a close, I’ll add my voice for Option A. I think BG are clearly inferior due to unusual facial expression, and C is unnecessarily old given the others. I understand the arguments of those preferring a more recent photo, including Carney being in his new role, but ultimately I choose A since the photo quality (resolution and/or sharpness) is better. And Carney’s appearance appears to have not changed much in the 5 years, and there’s nothing about it which would be non-representative of his new role. Bottom line is A is currently the best-available-quality photo, and the newer photos would be preferable only on the basis of what we could say about their provenance, not what they actually show. Martinp (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A. Next preference would be H if A is somehow unfavourable. It has a neutral facial expression, has no copyright issues, and he’s looking straight into the camera. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 02:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we should close this section. I’ve summarized the preferences in a table below. Although I was involved, it seems clear that considering all preferences, there’s no consensus to change the current photo (option A) for any of the other proposed photos, though there’s also broad consensus that a more recent high quality photo with neutral expression is desirable. If a great photo comes up (and surely one will soon enough now that Carney has a lot of visibility as PM), I suggest starting a new discussion (formal RFC?) to change it. Consigned (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New June image
Not sure how to properly start an RfC. I’ve tried before and failed, but I found this image. Maybe it’s better? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Although it has bad quality and imo has to be partly more zoomed out. But it’s great to see a newer photo.
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 17:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be closed based on the results of the discussion. As time goes on and more photos become available, hopefully a more recent and high quality image of Carney as PM will surface. Until then, I don’t think we need to change it per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY (High quality resolution portrait photograph is preferred over a low resolution crop) and WP:RECENTISM (We shouldn’t change the photo every month). Furthur contenders should have their own discussions instead of filling this one. PascalHD (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update : I’m gonna send a message to the Canadian government depending on the copyright status on the official portrait. if it is copyrighted then it obviously won’t get used, and we would have to keep the 2020 photo. if it is in the public domain however then we could change the photo.
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 13:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it’s not, we could always use this image. It has good quality. It does have him looking over somewhere, but he’s not excessively squinting or carrying an unusual facial expression and we can see his eyes.

Executive20000 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A zoomed out version would look better. but it’s good
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 15:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a more zoomed out crop if you find it more preferable.

Executive20000 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a version like this looks much better in my opinion.
𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Executive20000 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please open a new section for continued discussion, and perhaps turn these recently posted photos into wikilinks? This particular discussion has gone on long enough and is now impossible to follow, as PascalHD said it might be best to open a proper RFC from here if there’s still such a drive to change the image. MediaKyle (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I agree with PascalHD that we should wait for the dust to settle a bit – it’s tiresome to have an ongoing discussion every time a new photo comes up. But @MalborkHistorian if you feel very strongly about an image that wasn’t discussed above, to start an RFC, just create a new talk page section, put “{{RFC}}” at the top of the section, then type out your proposal. Please provide the current image, and any that you are proposing, ideally using the gallery format used above at Talk:Mark Carney#Discussion and statements of support of image choice. Consigned (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Oops, directed the RFC instructions to MalborkHistorian by mistake, meant it for @TDKR Chicago 101. Consigned (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it’s time to close this discussion and perhaps re-open it in several months time. There does appear to be a rough consensus for the status quo at this stage (half the editors involved support it, while the other have are split between alternatives), and frankly the discussion has become a little harder to follow after the addition of three photos late in the discussion (in fact after it had died down), meaning that most editors did not assess them at all. The newer photos are better, but we can’t keep stretching this discussion by throwing one in every few weeks. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think à consensus close for six months would be a good idea. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of preferences as of Jun 18 2025

[edit]

Please update the table if I made a mistake or if it can be improved –Consigned (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added an option K which I believe to be far and away and the best option. Under GODL license, from June 2025, straight-on clear and sharp photo, no weird face or look HaydonLearmonth (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to endorse option E: the one which has Carney forward facing, smiling, with a simple background, and is recent. Perhaps an alternative can be put forward which is identical to option E, but has more room on the top (between his head and the top of the frame). Regardless, option E is by far the best option. ▄︻デȶɦɛ աǟʄʄʟɛ══━一 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbnail File Name First preference Second preference Other preference
File:Mark Carney portrait February 2020.jpg Option A; status quo 10 (Consigned, MediaKyle, Executive20000, Nickeleh, Kawnhr, Zefr, TheHarveyWallbanger, Martinp, Stuffinwriting, PascalHD)
File:Mark Carney 2020.jpg Option B
File:Mark Carney World Economic Forum 2013 (3).jpg Option C
File:Mark Carney in 2025.png Option D 1 (Bakir123) 4 (TDKR, TheFellaVB, Dingers5Days, Consigned)
File:Mark Carney portrait May 2025 (cropped).jpg Option E 5 (TDKR, TheFellaVB, Dingers5Days, Imperatorhobbes, MalborkHistorian) 1 (Consigned)
File:Mark Carney portrait May 2025 (2).jpg Option F 1 (Imperatorhobbs) 3 (TDKR, TheFellaVB, Dingers5Days)
File:Mark Carney portrait May 2025 (3).jpg Option G 3 (TDKR, TheFellaVB, Dingers5Days)
File:Mark Carney portrait May 2025 (4).jpg Option H 4 (TDKR, TheFellaVB, Dingers5Days, Imperatorhobbes) 1 (Stuffinwriting) 1 (Consigned)
File:Prime Minister Mark Carney EU May 2025 (cropped).jpg Option I (added 24 May)
File:Mark Carney Vatican 2025.jpg Option J (added 27 May)
File:Prime Minister Mark Carney June 2025.jpg Option K (added 01 August)
  • Option G. The rest look like they’re sort of… cartoonish? Or they don’t have the eyes open, or they’re too old. I think option G is the best presentation of his face, probably because he seems to smile with his eyes mostly closed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 image at the White House
How about this option? CheAjlt (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace image of Mark Carney to Mark Carney in 2025.png, as it is very recent and clear. AverageCanadianPolitician (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: You might want to read the lengthy discussion about this very topic above. Consensus seems to currently be to keep the image as is. You’re welcome to add your input. MediaKyle (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

didn’t even win a majority.
Correct facts… not on Wikipedia . 24.231.76.4 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about landslide victory is referring to his election as Liberal Party leader in March: “Carney won on the first ballot with over 85.9% of the vote, making him the leader of the Liberal Party”. Later on in the same paragraph, it refers to him winning a minority government in the general election in April. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially wrong: “During this time, he was also appointed as the second Chair of the Financial Stability Board, a position he held for two terms from 2011 to 2018.” This should apparently read “… a position he held for two YEARS from 2011 to 2013”. Since this page is partially locked, please have someone review this sentence and correct as necessay. 2604:2000:6FC0:101:19BE:C4B4:B625:3AC5 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The FSB website confirms that Carney served as Chair from 2011–2018. References in this article detail his appointment, and reappointment for a second term: [1], [2]. I’ve edited the body text to make this more explicit. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official photo of carney: https://www.pm.gc.ca/sites/pm/files/2025-06/PM_Web_8x10_Colour_EN.jpg 2605:8D80:5721:C727:4806:EFC6:CCFD:ADCA (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official photos have crown copyright we cannot use them. Moxy🍁 20:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We’ll have to wait at least 50 years until we can use this photo; https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/terms-avis/copyright-droits-FAQ-eng.htm PascalHD (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Carney from June 2025
Even though this image is copyrighted and can’t be used, I do believe we should find and use a better image of Carney, as others have pointed out the current one looks like it was taken after he just got out of bed.
Personally I think this image from June would be an amazing pick for the lead image. The lighting is clear, it’s very recent, it’s of decent quality, his eyes aren’t closed, he’s not making any kind of unusual face. It’s just a good image TheFellaVB (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed. The fact we have an infobox image from five years ago and one of him not in his current office is not ideal. I think the June 2025 is the best photo we’ll get until another one comes through. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above your month behind the conversation. Moxy🍁 00:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a different one: Prime Minister Mark Carney June 2025.jpg and it’s under GODL which says it “applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.”
I believe we should use this one. HaydonLearmonth (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just stop talking about this for a while. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we should stop talking about the article in the article’s talk section? HaydonLearmonth (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Which picture should we use for Carney?” has been asked continually since March (both here and on election pages), and every time a consensus appears to be reached and the convo die down, another image gets proposed. It’s exhausting. I get it, the photo we’re using is five years old, and was agreed on because primarily because no newer one was any better, and maybe there’s something better now. But throwing something into the mix weeks after most editors have moved on isn’t really going to get a lot of play, especially if these aren’t Obviously Better. That’s why I proposed, above, that we table this discussion for a few months: both to let editors relax and to wait a bit longer until we have a variety of 2025 photos, some of them probably good, to choose from. I get that it’s a little odd that a head of government is represented by a photo of him before he was even in politics. But it’s really not the end of the world if Carney is represented by an image of him with a slightly greyer head of hair. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be snippy, but you can see this has been a very long discussion already. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply hadn’t seen anyone discuss this specific photo at length, and it’s already been changed to that one in the 2025 election article. If that’s the consensus, by all means keep the 2020 one, I just thought I’d broach it having seen it be adopted on other articles. HaydonLearmonth (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can bring this back up in a few months time – near end of year. By then we should have lots to choose from, and more energy from editors. I understand that having a newer photo especially one of him as PM is important (I do too), but so is quality. Is replacing a 3000×2000+ hi-res portrait photo with a low-res 500px crop merely because it is newer, truly a positive change to the page? We have to strike a fine balance between recency and quality. PascalHD (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 image at the White House
How about this photo instead? CheAjlt (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Negative nancy (you) TheFellaVB (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 image at the White House
Again, I repeat, how about this May 2025 photo? CheAjlt (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is a crop of Option D above which was discussed and not chosen. If you read all of the comments since that discussion, you’ll see that there’s little appetite to re-open the photo debate, especially for a crop of a photo that’s already been discussed. Consigned (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He didnt remove them, he didnt even have power to do so. This claim is referring to before he ‘won’ the election and then he didnt remove it, he re-priced it to 0 which he has now brought back under a different name. 24.139.25.214 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was deleted by Zefr under WP:NOTFORUM. It seems to me that the IP is referring directly to the article content, and pointing out a potential issue – therefore not a forum post. I decided to restore it. MediaKyle (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of the page: “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Carney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.”
A comment here should propose a specific improvement to the article and provide a source for it. The IP editor or MediaKyle can write the proposed improvement with WP:RS for other editors to review. Zefr (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top