Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:33, 16 September 2010

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

File:LA Showroom1 dakota jackson.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to Commons). This is potentially a featured picture for Wikipedia. It is not just an image. It is obviously art. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Library Chair dakota jackson.jpg

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to Commons and tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to Commons). Obviously art, not just an image. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vikter dakota jackson.jpg

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to Commons and tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to Commons). Obviously art, not just an image. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saturn stool dakota jackson.jpg

Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to Commons and tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to Commons). Obviously art, not just an image. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polycanlogo.gif

Orphaned company logo, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no apparent reason for keeping this on file.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG

Not clear what this image is adding to the article. The general terms of the rationale are not at all helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. This is one of the periodic attempts by a small number of editors to have Holocaust images deleted, something I will never understand if I live to be a thousand years old (which I fully intend to do!).
It is an image from Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel, author unknown. It shows German policemen kicking a Jew in the streets of Rzeszow, Poland, and it's being used in the Holocaust article to illustrate day-to-day life for European Jews in certain countries during that period.
Because of the time period the Holocaust occurred in, just 70-ish years ago, we're not able to claim public domain for any of the images, so we're forced to claim fair use. For obvious reasons author releases are impossible to come by, even when the names of the photographers are known. Sometimes these images were taken by Nazi officers. Sometimes they were taken by passers-by and underground movements at great personal risk to themselves to show the world what was happening. It has always struck me as the supreme irony that a project designed to be the sum of all human knowledge wants to exclude images smuggled out of Holocaust Europe to educate the world about what was going on.
These images are suggested for deletion with such regularity—J Milburn also wanted File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg to be deleted recently, a child dying in the Warsaw ghetto—that I think the time has come to add something to the image policies that excludes these nominations, or to ask that the Foundation involve itself. I realize that J Milburn is acting in good faith. He has the interests of the project in mind, and its free nature, but there is more than one kind of freedom at stake here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is ridiculous. We don't need new policies for images of a certain thing- this is a non-free image. I am more than happy for free images of the Holocaust to be used on the project- I recently supported one at FPC, for instance. The use of this image with regards to our policy is currently a little questionable. Can we stop throwing around the hyperbole and look into the issue at hand? J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you removing a few Holocaust images recently, though you must know how difficult it is to find free ones. This was one of the issues raised during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama, where people made clear that they didn't agree with attempts to remove them. If you want to look for images that illustrate inappropriate fair-use claims, I can only ask that you don't focus on the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't focus on Holocaust articles in any way, shape or form. Can we forget about the fact that this image is to do with the Holocaust? That's not important. It's non-free, and so must be treated like any other non-free image, whether you, me or "people" like or dislike the subject matter. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like all the policies, the fair-use policy has to be approached with common sense, and consensus on Wikipedia during every single discussion I've ever seen about this is that Holocaust images are acceptable under the fair-use policies, because text just isn't enough to describe what happened. Because of the time frame, and because we almost never have releases, there is no alternative to fair use. I don't know what else to say to you because consensus on that is very clear, and you haven't given any reason that this image should be deleted, except that you personally don't understand why it's being used. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that "is that Holocaust images are acceptable under the fair-use policies" is ridiculous. Of course they are, if they meet the crtieria. There are no rules that make "Holocaust images" any more or any less likely to meet our criteria, so trying to judge them as a group is a complete waste of time. Yes, there will be plenty of "Holocaust images" which could be used legitimately on Wikipedia in certain places. No one's arguing about that. My suggestion here is that, yes, I do not see what it's being used for or why it is being used, and that the useless, general rationale does nothing to help me understand. Nothing about "Holocaust images". J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to others to weigh in here. I've explained what it's being used for, and you can see it for yourself, so I don't know what else to say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've shouted a lot about censorship and freedom and the Holocaust generally (especially "Holocaust images", whatever they are), I've seen precious little about our NFCC. The RFC has nothing to do with this issue; I'm not suggesting that this is replaceable, I've never said that. What's the image showing? Why does that need to be shown so urgently? You've also made no effort to deal with the piss-poor rationale. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fair use rationale given on picture and by SlimVirgin is clear, accurate, and persuasive. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, what rationale was that? J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The comment of 11:13, 14 September 2010 just above, and the rationale on the image itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, as I said, the rationale on the image page is useless and generic. It could apply to any image, anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? Let's look at just four of the many statements in the rationale:
      - It offers an insight into the vagaries of life for Jews during the Holocaust
      - Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.
      - Because of the age of Holocaust images there is no realistic prospect of finding a similar image that will be in the public domain in the United States
      - As is usually the case with Holocaust images, it is not possible to obtain a release, and in this case the author is unknown
    - All those "could apply to any image, anywhere"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The rationale is stuffed full of vague terminology. It seems the image is being used to "offer an insight into the vagaries of life for Jews during the Holocaust". Ok- why's it so urgent that's shown and do we really have no free images that could do that? J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of NFCC#8, I have found some others showing conditions. Forced labour, armbands, more forced labour, ghetto, old women and children on rubble, and there are no doubt others. Would they not serve to "offer an insight into the vagaries of life for Jews during the Holocaust"? J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't illustrate anything close to the same issue, and four of them lack author information and are not old enough to be PD, so they're odd examples for you to highlight. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your concerns. I've updated reason two to read It offers an insight into the daily humiliations and injuries suffered by Jews in Poland at the hands of German officials during the Holocaust. I hope this makes it more clear why it's so important and relevant, and why the alternatives you proposed wouldn't at all illustrate the same concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I wasn't looking at the licensing, I assumed that if they were on Commons they were fine. Nominate them for deletion if you are concerned; otherwise, let's assume they're free for now... Jayjg, ok, but why do we specifically need an image to "offer an insight into the daily humiliations and injuries suffered by Jews in Poland at the hands of German officials during the Holocaust"? No, I (doubt) we have a free image that shows exactly that, but I'm looking at this from NFCC#8 grounds now... If that's an important issue, yes, by all means, talk about it with reliable sources, but why precisely do we need an image? J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I've nominated a number of them for deletion at Commons myself, if you're interested in weighing in on the discussion... J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any free Holocaust images. They're not old enough, and the authors are usually unknown or not contactable. There are some from the Bundesarchiv that they gave us, but the images weren't theirs to give, which is overlooked on the Commons because it was such a large and welcome gift. But the fact is that we should almost always be claiming fair use, and those claims should be allowed, because from any common sense, legal, ethical, and educational perspective there's no problem at all with our use of them.

What you're doing here is very POINTy, J, and you're not making yourself look good, if you care about that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, we have a large number of Holocaust images on Commons. If you are not convinced that they are free, do the right thing and nominate them for deletion. If you're not willing to do that, with all due respect, shut up. And, for what it's worth, anyone looking at this objectively can see you're doing yourself no favours either- you have ignored the point in order to attempt to turn this into something that it isn't. To be frank, I've been told that before, and it just reeks of "well, I know you're right, but go away, I DON'T CARE". I think you realise I find you a very difficult person to talk to- your perceptions of how things are are more than a little bit unusual on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've posted on my talk page that you're going to try to remove images from The Holocaust article, [1] which I feel confirms that there's a POINT issue here. JM, please recall what happened when you tried to defend pedophiles editing Wikipedia. You were taking the arguments as far as you could, and if you recall I defended you when you were attacked for it, because I could see that's all you were doing. But this is a similar issue. You've decided to focus on a very sensitive issue, and ruthlessly apply what you see as logic and the rules of Wikipedia. But there has to be room for community norms too, even when they conflict with other rules, or seem irrational.

This isn't the place to be having that discussion, though. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what point am I trying to prove with this disruption? We have policies, and the fact this is a controversial topic shouldn't matter. The policy is nothing to do with the controversiality of this subject. Would you accuse someone of trying to clean up the article MOS-wise of POINT disruption? Why on Earth should the NFCC be any different? J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support deletion. The use made of this file runs afoul of the doctrine on Non-Free material on Wikipedia, in the sense that it is claimed as Fair Use purely for the convenience of not having to look for other images. An image should be discussed for itself, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is discussed; here, the image is simply exhibited as a visual example of something, without being commented or remarkable itself. It is not proved that Free alternatives cannot exist, and indeed alternatives are probably available on Commons at Category:The Holocaust, Category:Jewish German history or Category:The Holocaust in Germany.

Some of the arguments presented above are noticeable, compounding the impopularity what the Wikipedia Non-Free doctrine actually says (is essence it says Arbeit macht frei, and many people loath working) with the percieved defence of some Jewish interests. This last point is noble, but I so not see why the Jewish holocaust should entail an exception to the Fair Use doctrine (why not Gypsies or homosexuals?); furthermore, I see more or less explicit insinuations of revisionism that should simply have no place here. I believe that the occurrence of ad hominem insinuations (either of revisionism or of WP:POINT while J Milburn is perfectly in line with policies), calls for exemptions of Wikipedia policies and FUD tactics as to the actual Free images that we have all herald the weakness of the arguments for keeping this image. Rama (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever argued anywhere on Wikipedia that images of Jewish victims should take priority over any other, and indeed we also claim fair use for images of Roma victims. Rama, I can't imagine why you'd think it appropriate to use the phrase "Arbeit macht frei" (and that many people loath working?) as some kind of analogy here, though I'm very glad to say I didn't understand your point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The still stands that you have effectively argued to ignore the NFCC in favour of decorating the article with images- seems to be basic case exceptionalism. Whether this is because of "Jewish interests" or whatever I don't know, I don't want to second-guess your motives. However, it's not the way we should be working here. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not because of "Jewish issues." Guys, please take a step back and look at your posts. Jewish interests? Arbeit macht frei?

It's because the Holocaust can't be taught in words alone. It is because people struggled to get these images out of occupied Europe to educate the rest of the world. It's because there is no legal or ethical reason not to use them, and because we're an educational project, and these images educate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I didn't want to second-guess why you were being exceptionalist, I was just observing that you were. There's no legal or ethical reason not to use a great deal of non-free content- hell, there's no legal or ethical reason for most of our points of the NFCC in most cases. For instance, images that are not free for commercial use, despite the fact there's no obvious ethical or legal issue with our use of them, are treated as "non-free". However, the point remains that we do have NFCC, and if we can't enforce them on high-profile, highly academic articles, what chance do we have on articles about rappers or porn films? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::: SlimVirgin, you said right above: "These images are suggested for deletion with such regularity—J Milburn also wanted File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg to be deleted recently, a child dying in the Warsaw ghetto—that I think the time has come to add something to the image policies that excludes these nominations". I understand this as claiming an exemption from the Non-Free Content policies. "Exceptionalism", as Milburn says. :::: "Arbeit macht frei" means "work makes free". Notwithstanding its use in History, it is a perfectly valid motto for Free software and Free content, which entail work. The NFCC says that one cannot claim non-Free material as a substitute for research or creation; as such, it is extremely unpopular on Wikipedia and virtually impossible to implement on some particular topics -- but it still is the policy. :::: We are indeed an educational project and a variety of historical matters are worth being taught, but I see no reason why we could not do it with the corpus of Free images at our disposal. Many subjects on Wikipedia are taught without running afoul of NFCC. I see no reason why any subject could not, and that happens to includes the Jewish Holocaust. Rama (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appropriate fair use. –xeno^talk 13:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Howso? This has hardly been the least controversial discussion, a little explanation would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It meets all ten criteria of the WP:NFCC. (I disagree that the subject could be adequately conveyed through text alone.) –xeno^talk 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not trying to badger you here, but what do you feel that this image is illustrating, why do you feel it's so urgent that that is illustrated, and why do you feel there is not a free image that could replace it? J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The top-down nature of the abuse, the fact that it was institutionalized, etc. I'm not sure why you are so strenuously arguing for the deletion of this ~~iconic~~ instructive image - your efforts would be better spent elsewhere (no free alternative has been put forth, our legal exposure here is nil, it is used in appropriate context and adds substantial value to the article). –xeno^talk 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's iconic? How so? Do we have secondary sources pointing to its historical significance? None are referred to in the text, caption, or image description page. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        None ready-to-hand, so amended. –xeno^talk 15:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How does this photo show that the abuse is institutionalized? It's a soldier kicking someone on the street. There's no indication that the soldier is acting under orders. And more importantly, where is this described in the article? howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that the others look on with obvious enthusiastic endorsement. –xeno^talk 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And we need an image of this so urgently because... J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it improves the article and the encyclopedia, and there is no reason to remove it (other than dogmatic adherence to a subjective interpretation of a guideline). –xeno^talk 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        ^ This. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How?! "It improves the article" is not an explanation of how it meets NFCC#8, it's just an assertion that it does... J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It contributes to the gestalt of the article, providing a visual depiction of the institutionalized abusive treatment of Jewish people during this time period. –xeno^talk 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        An image has to stand on its own merits if it is to pass the NFCC, not be one of many that, overall, make an article nice. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And I've already indicated to you why I feel that it passes the NFCC. –xeno^talk 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Slim Virgin; this is an appropriate use of an unfree image under both fair-use legal doctrines and our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Howso? This has hardly been the least controversial discussion, a little explanation would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no reason to re-litigate this each time a new editor expresses an opinion associating themselves with previous comments. Such behavior could well be seen as badgering, and is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: after reading SlimVirgins description of this thread, I advised him to take a day off and stop the drama. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed (though not SV is a she)- SV's attitude here has been more than a little difficult. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I find the fair use argument to be persuasive. I hope everyone will calm down here, (and I to a large extent understand why SV would be upset when Rama is throwing around arbeit macht frei as a positive remark indicates an astounding lack of clue and borderline trolling). JoshuaZ (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that the picture in the image is easily described by text "A interned prisoner is beaten up by a guard while other guards watch happily." Conveys the same information towards the topic without the need of non-free content. If this picture were free, yes, it would fine to include, but as non-free it is easily replaced by text to get the same point across. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started reading this discussion, and the very first oppose brings an attack against the person who brought the FfD and similar editors. Attacking your fellow editors is NOT the way to present your best argument for deletion. Further, treating people who question non-free holocaust images with the veiled insinuation they are pro holocaust is beyond the pale. This has nothing to do with emotional constructs surrounding the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete There's a number of reasons. First, we must ask 'what does this image bring to the subject?' Easy. Treatment of Jews by Nazis. Next question, 'do we have free content (either in images or text) that serves the same purpose?' Not quite as easy, but the answer is an emphatic yes. We have a category at Commons with literally hundreds of free license images having to do with the Holocaust. A number of other examples have already been cited in this discussion, and I found others as well in a cursory review. Another question to ask is whether the article reads the same with and without the image. Easy answer again; the image isn't even referenced in the text. There's no connection between it and the text, except vaguely by way of section headings. Another question to ask is if the image is historically significant as supported by secondary sources. That answer is easy too; no. There's no sourced commentary (or even commentary) about the image or its historical significance. In short, it's being used to loosely illustrate this article in a way that is readily replaceable by free alternatives. There's nothing about its absence that detracts from the article. This is a clear failure of WP:NFCC #1 and #8. I'd also like to note there's been attempts in this debate to explode this single debate into a war cry regarding all such images. We're not debating all such images. We're debating this image, and this image alone. Enough of the rhetoric, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
tentative Keep having looked through the commons for a similiar image, I am forced to conclude this is the only free one of this quality that can be found. Thus I am comforatble using it right now. However I shall look and i encourage others to look for a free one of similar quality and depiction. BB7 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is zero commentary on this specific image. In order to properly use this photo, you have to find sources that actually discuss it specifically (and not just the event that the photo depicts -- this is a subtle difference). BB7 above me says there is no alternative in the Commons category of the same quality; unfortunately that is irrelevant. The true question is, do we have a replacement that serves the same encyclopedic purpose, which as many have already pointed out, is to show the violent treatment of Jews at the hands (or feet, in this case) of Nazis. So looking through what we have finds us these possibilities:

File:Wiesbaden Synagogue Burning1939.jpg

I'm sure there are more that can fit the bill as well, but I didn't look too hard. howcheng {chat} 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those serve the same instructive purpose. –xeno^talk 15:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What instructive purpose is that? It seems whenever a replacement is found, the purpose of the image changes to something else that absolutely has to be illustrated or the article will be useless. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that above at 14:35. –xeno^talk 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, it's the issue that must be the subject of debate, not the image. The policy says: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary," but it doesn't mean the image itself must have been the focus of debate. If it meant that, almost all our fair-use images would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but the fact that an issue (and it would have to be a very specific issue to be illustrated by this image but none of our free ones...) is discussed does not mean that we need an image. We use an image only if there is no way that the issue could be fully understood without it. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument here, which you haven't addressed, is that the Holocaust as a whole is poorly understand without the collection of images as a whole, and that it makes no sense to try to judge the value of each image separately. I can understand having this discussion if there was some legal issue at stake, but given that there is zero legal problem, I'm baffled by this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images have to be judged on their own merits- that's what the NFCC is all about. As for the legalities- there may be, there may not be, I'm no lawyer. I'm not really too concerned. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to be concerned. Raising an issue like this where there's no legal or ethical issue, no copyright issue, no possibility in a thousand years of anyone objecting, and which relies on an overly strict interpretation of the fair-use policy—an interpretation it's far from clear you have consensus for—serves only to make the policy look silly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. The image is non-free, whether it's an article you like or not. The policy concerns non-free media, not "media SlimVirgin thinks we may get sued for using". J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ethical issue: our principle that we limit non-free content to that which is truly necessary. We either have principles, or we don't. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is really the right venue for such a discussion, but I think an examination of how NFCC (or the interpretation of NFCC) has gone completely overboard (not just in this case, but in many cases) is definitely needed. There are principles to having a free (as in speech) project, to be sure. But there are also principles of common sense that seem to have been sacrificed at some point. And that's simply not right. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said simliar quality and Depiction So far i see none that show a simliar depiction thus Fair use is acecptable until a free one can be found. BB7 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe you ignored my earlier statement, which is that we have free equivalents that serve the same encyclopedic purpose, which is to show the everyday mistreatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. We don't need to replace this with another image of a soldier kicking a man when he's down. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I has never a big fun of Legalism. Ruslik_Zero 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...That's one of the least helpful comments I've ever seen. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although there are no real copyright problems with this image, and although it might be free. But establishing that needs some work. Which would also make this image more encyclopedic. Questions that need to be answered are: When was this first published? Where? Where did this photo come from, who was the photographer, when was this photo made? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's fair use. I would say that, in general, the fair use guidelines have become far, far too strict (or rather a handful of editors are interpreting what constitutes fair use far too strictly). This is probably a good example of this trend. I also doubt that there's any real copyright on this image at all, but I suppose it's possible that there is. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The NFCC have always been stricter than merely "fair use"- otherwise, what's the point in having them? Obviously, there would be no objection if it was free, but, until there is evidence that it is, it has to be treated as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, "fair use" is a real term out in the real world. And it's used in a pretty lax manner generally (for newspapers, etc.). So I don't really understand why a few Wikipedians take such a hard-line approach with NFCC. There's no mandate for NFCC to be as rigid (or as rigidly interpreted) as it is. If you're asking me whether NFCC has gone overboard, I think the answer is fairly obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, there is: NFC (more specifically, an exemption doctrine policy for copyright media files) and BLP are only two mandates that have been passed down on the project from the Foundation. Their sandbox, their rules. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And besides, that's the law: copyright is assumed unless proven otherwise. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Yad Vashem claiming on their website to have all rights reserved doesn't actually mean that they do. At this point in time, I suppose it's fair to take them at their word, but I'd be curious to know how they got the copyright to this photo. It seems far more likely to me that their footer is simply wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Copyfraud is outside the scope of this discussion. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any case, we assume it's copyrighted until shown otherwise; so, until shown otherwise, this usage has to meet our NFCC. In any other setting, this would most certainly not meet the NFCC; why the fact the article is about the Holocaust is having such an effect on people is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slim and Xeno. Also, Rama should strike his comments above that trivialize Nazi atrocities. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a historically important image, important to the reader to confey the subject matter; a text-only description would be insufficient. There's also issues of the rarity of images from this setting, so finding a free alternative is all but impossible. I see little that is rebutting these arguments so far, other than from those with an apparently draconian interpretation of NFCC. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons has many free images. That's hardly a well-informed opinion. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there any that show maltreatment of a Jewish person while others look on in obvious enjoyment? –xeno^talk 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does it matter? If we had a sourced discussion of the fact that there was maltreatment of Jewish people while others looked on in obvious enjoyment, there may be a discussion to have there. I don't believe we do. Again, it would seem that if this image is being used to illustrate something in which it does not fail NFCC#1, it fails NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your opinion, one I do not share. –xeno^talk 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So you feel that having no image to "show maltreatment of a Jewish person while others look on in obvious enjoyment" would be "detrimental to [reader] understanding"? J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite. –xeno^talk 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (ec)And that was hardly a well-informed response above, since yes, it does matter. The image is being used in conjunction with a section title "Early measures in German occupied Poland", and is a good depiction of the treatment of Jews in the timer period before exterminations began. And you don't need to reply to each and every person who weighs in here with a keep. You're making this into much more of a battleground than it should be. Please, have some tea and chill a bit. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos that show maltreatment of Jewish person while others look on in enjoyment:

Smiling person in background
Crowd watching a non-soldier beat up some guy without interfering (one in a series of 3 photos)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Howcheng (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts (realizing it is not a pleasant task looking through these images), but neither of these are suitable alternatives to the very instructive image under discussion. The first is quite peripheral and not showing maltreatment of a still-breathing person, the second is a citizen, not a policeman/soldier, and while the crowd is looking on & apparently failing to intervene, they do not look on with enjoyment or enthusiasm. –xeno^talk 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we clearly have free photos available of the Holocaust, including many depicting the actual atrocities in all their horror: [2]. Given this, the nonfree content cannot remain. It is not only replaceable but in fact replaced with free content. This is, for good reason, an emotional issue for many people, and it is certainly understandable why, but the same rules apply even to highly charged issues. In this case, that rule is clear—if we have free content, no nonfree is allowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that any photographs of the Holocaust are free, SB. The Bundesarchiv gave us some, but they weren't theirs to give. Others have PD claimed for them even though they're not old enough and we have no author information. I hesitate to post this in case it unleashes some editors hunting them down and wanting to delete them. But by pretending we have some free ones, and therefore can't use others, we're just perpetuating the confusion. The fact is that, because of when the Holocaust occurred, and because most of the authors are dead or unknown, we have almost no free images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, although I think the image should be deleted, I express amazement at Rama's comment, and suggest he strikes or removes it. Secondly, to characterize editors as wanting to remove images of the holocaust is unfair, I've been accused as having a bias against modern art, comics and tv shows, and the constant accusations are becoming tiresome. Thirdly, to answer to MZMcBride, the guiding principle, stipulated by the foundation is still "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose", or in other words, the small group of editors looking to delete such images are acting within policy. The holocaust, is of course, most definitely a historically significant event, however other editors commenting here have shown that non-free images are available. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the commons, I found a couple of relevant free images:

File:Jews forced to march with star Kristallnacht.jpg

PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not free, Phil. Just because something is on the Commons doesn't mean it's free—things are often tagged wrongly, or people misunderstand the rules. With the Holocaust being relatively recent, the authors often unknown, and first publication dates unknown, there are very few free images. And even when we do have these details, they're free only in very limited circumstances (confiscated by the U.S. military, for example, is one of the criteria I believe). So far as I can tell, none of the images people have posted so far are free within our policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, we simply can't accept that kind of comment in good faith unless you're willing to nominate the images for deletion. While they exist unchallenged on Commons, we should be treating them as free. If they're not free, we should be nominating them for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All other photographs depict either execution of Jews (or non-Jews) or other Nazi organised actions, most of which took place in separate guarded places like camps or ghettos. By contrast, the picture discussed here shows a situation on some unspecified city street, in other words, this picture seems to be an example of a scene ordinary non-Jewish citizens could frequently witness. Therefore this picture is a good complement to other photographs and, in my opinion, the encyclopaedic purpose of the article is not completely achieved without this photo.-Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. And in reading the discussion above, it would seem that this is mostly an IDONTLIKEIT nom. And before you accuse me of presuming bad faith, please remember that we're not directed to AGF when evidence to the contrary is presented to us. And it would seem to me that there is indeed such here. (Merely my opinion, of course, nonetheless.) And while IANAL it just seems surprising to me that the rationales already listed on the file are being considered the way they are. I've encountered so many other files in the last few years which had far less in the way of justifications. And Paul Siebert (and others') comments above make it pretty clear that it's the specific depictions in the image which make it illustrative for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. Can it be considered a disturbing image? yes. But as I noted at the start: Wikipedia is not censored. - jc37 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullshit. I have no idea why you're accusing me of that- my nomination was entirely about the NFCC, and every argument I have presented here has been. It's some of the people in support of the image who have tried to turn it into something else- I've been actively trying to drag the discussion back to the NFCC. Have you actually read the discussion, or are you just jumping to conclusions that make it easier to dismiss objections to the image? J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Try to see the forest through the tress here people. By random coincidence I happened upon this photo just last week and it struck me then as an almost perfect picture of what life was like under the nazi regime. It's not in one of the death camps, it just shows the day-to-day miseries inflicted by the nazis and their toadies on anyone who didn't fit in with their fascist ideology.SlimVirgin's FUR is compelling as well. It's more or less impossible to find out at this point who actually took this photo, an argument can be made that nobody has any right to restrict it's use, and I certainly don't think it is at all likely that it will ever cause any legal problems for the Foundation to keep it. The site it was taken from wants the information they have to be shared and seen by as many people as possible so that this never happens again. I admit this is s a soft spot for me and has been ever since reading works by Alexander Donat and Primo Levi some years ago, but this nomination and the arguments to delete strike me as process for the sake of process as opposed to a legitimate attempt to either improve Wikipedia or protect it from lawsuits. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the image is iconic. The editors above have clearly pointed out that common sense should be applied to any policy, including the copyright policy. Fair use images are not prohibited on Wikipedia, they are discouraged in principle for reasons I won't go into now. However, there is another reason this particular image should stay; the image itself is iconic, like for example this copyrighted image. Images like this are known to be associated with the topic so whether they're free becomes less relevant. Keep in mind that we aren't violating any copyright laws here and there's no legal problem. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Iconic how? Source? You're throwing around words and not backing them up here. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A picture can be iconic without being a cultural icon. The image is a visceral depiction of the maltreatment of the Jewish people during this time period: it speaks a thousand words. –xeno^talk 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin and others. Only in the most hypertechnical sense is this a fair-use image rather than a free image. Requests for deletion of encyclopedic content based on purely notional copyright concerns—that is, in contexts where there is no meaningful possibility that a copyright interest will ever be asserted by anyone—are generally unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are free or are they are non-free- it really is that black and white. Attempts to introduce middle-ground (noncom, for Wikipedia use, "logos" etc) have been strongly resisted. This image is non-free until shown otherwise; treating it as anything else completely undermines the entire point of having NFCC. Reading that, from you, has really crossed the line into "this is a waste of my fucking time, why do I even bother", and so this is going off my watchlist. I have not been convinced, I've been worn down to the point of dispair. Non-free content must meet our non-free content criteria. I implore anyone with any sense, especially the person who closes this discussion, to ignore anyone who says anything even remotely like the opposite. And, seeing as there's been plenty of assumptions of bad faith about my intention, I'm not going to be polite- there has clearly been canvassing here- closer, please take that into account. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if we were to accept that the image fails NFCC #8 (or #1), that is a rule and like all others it may be ignored if the encyclopedia is improved in the ignoring. The use of the image is, from a legal standpoint, appropriate under fair use doctrines, even if you don't agree that it meets all ten of our strict conditions. –xeno^talk 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I may inject my 2 cents here, I disagree that WP:NFCC is allowed to fall under WP:IAR. I think this because of the following line: "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects" which can be seen here. I could be wrong though.--Rockfang (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replying only to J Milburn's comment about canvassing; it may be legitimate to ask how I came to this discussion, since I rarely participate in FFD. The answer is that this debate is the subject of a thread on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin and others. Per above. I just fail to see any reason that would justify deleting this image. I'm not convinced by any arguments in favor of deletion. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. (per SlimVirgin and others) Consensus holds more sway in some realms than in other realms. Were the issue one of text, and failure to find support in sources for text in question, consensus should be understood to have limited ability to overcome the problem of inadequate sourcing. But the question of images as concerns fair use imagery and the justification thereof, is different. Images have intangible qualities that text tends to have less of. There are cliches to attest to this. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. More apropos to this discussion consider the cliche that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly when evaluating imagery we are squarely in the realm of subjective judgements. You can't just say, "how about this one, instead of that one?" Consensus really matters when evaluating imagery. This is not to say that reasons need not be articulated for choices for and against individual images. We can and we should discuss why we want to see certain holocaust images in an article and conversely why some of us might feel that an image should not be used, especially if using it requires utilizing the fair use exclusion. But getting back to my central thought—holocaust imagery is going to be chosen by editors wishing to strengthen an article on that subject on such qualities as pathos. Pathos is not going to be detectable except by personal sensibilities. Consensus as to what contributes to an emotion-laden article such as the holocaust is going to be a subjective endeavor. Consensus matters more here than in a question involving questionable or poorly sourced text. I'm not meaning to go off on a tangent but consensus should be understood to have limited applicability when sourcing for text to be included in an article is at question. But consensus really matters when choosing photographs or other purely visual imagery. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is easily replaceable by text. Masem has a possible candidate above. The image fails NFCC #1 and as such, should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockfang—It important to be specific. I am an artist. And I study art. Visual images, including photographs, lend themselves to verbal exploration. If we are ever to address and tackle the topic at hand, we have to talk about the image. It is good to have the image at hand. Refer to it (the actual image) while you are writing (whether you wish the image to be kept or deleted). I argue for the image to be kept. My reasoning: Note the body language conveying the heartiness of the laughing. All the prominent figures facing the camera are caught in action. This is a "good" photograph, however horrible it may be. There are 5 men prominently in the foreground, facing the camera. They are very clearly "tormenters." This is not something that requires words. That is what a good image is about—a good image transcends words. Note the enjoyment evident in the body language of the five tormenters. Note the cruelty and animation in the standing figure closest to the man on the ground. Not only is his face aglow in a bright grin, but all four of his limbs are in positions other than at rest. His body is bent at the waist. This conveys a readiness to deliver another blow to the poor helpless man on the ground. You have to analyze imagery. It is not enough to say something is iconic. Nor do I pretend that I have the final word on the significance or insignificance of this image, or its relative importance to our article. But when dealing with images you must use words to address specifics. Many people overlook this. I welcome hearing from those telling us that this image is not worthy of being kept in our article. But I implore you—please speak specifically about the individual photo in what it conveys (or fails to convey). Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The policy's words ("can be replaced by text"), if they are understood literally, can be applied to all images without exception. Although the image itself can be described verbally, the non-verbal emotional load it carries may be lost. Therefore, the Rockfang's argument is applicable only to those images which carry no or little emotional or other non-verbal messages. That does not work in our case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 1957.jpg

This is a photo of Jim Patterson Stadium in Louisville, Kentucky, viewed from 3rd Street. Unfortunately it is a low-resolution photo that really does not show much of the stadium at all—most of the photo is just grass and parked cars, with a bit of the stadium in the background. There are no problems with the copyright or licensing status of this image; if it is decided to keep this image, it should be moved to the Commons under a better file name. —Bkell (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 1371.jpg

Unused photo of the Medical Research Tower at the University of Louisville. This image seems to have been superseded by File:ULMedTower.jpg, which is a better photo of the tower. If this image is kept, it should be moved to the Commons under a better file name. —Bkell (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 876.jpg

Unused photo of a road. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is apparently a tree-lined street in Savannah, Georgia [3]. I am still of the opinion that it is not particularly useful here. —Bkell (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ottercreek.jpg

Photo of Otter Creek Park near Louisville, Kentucky. The summary claims, "Image obtained from park's official web site, which is maintained by a government agency, thus not subject to copyright," but this is erroneous reasoning—not all works of all government agencies are in the public domain. It is tagged as non-free but has no rationale. It is easily replaceable, so it fails WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:KCCLIVESTUDIO1.jpg

At one time these were likely meant for use in User talk:ONLINEUKNEWS and Stephen Colduck. Orphans and unused. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaulTracyCleveland.jpg

Non-free image used in Paul Tracy to show that "Paul drove for Team KOOL Green from 1998–2002." This information is easily conveyed by free text, and the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and would not "be detrimental to that understanding" if removed, so the use of this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7hayes-amy2.jpg

Unused. Subject is the uploader, image taken by their father. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, if this Amy Beth Hayes is the same person, we could use it in her article. There's pics at her IMDB entry, but I can't tell if it's the same woman or not. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 1998.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. —Bkell (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of a house, probably somewhere in Kentucky (based on the uploader's contributions), but with no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I now see that it was once used in the Louisville, Kentucky article [4] with the caption, "The city's "Old Louisville" neighborhood is filled with Victorian era mansions." —Bkell (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:7uu 010.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F9. –xeno^talk 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Subject to personal opinion - is this really of any use? I mean outside of an article on blurry images? If consensus says it is than lets {{mtc}}. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a photo of Lord of the Rings on TV; if that's the case it's not free and needs to go, but in any case the image is so poor it does not aid understanding of the subject and is of little use. Nev1 (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Tis. –xeno^talk 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:A Very Lunch Club Christmas Photo DSC00328.JPG

This is a series of images, all unused. They seem like personal photos, I see no encyclopedic use for them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kroepke 1895.jpg

Redundant to File:Hannover Georgstraße mit Theater (um 1895).jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thermodynamic schools (connection diagram) 1000x920.jpg

Redundant to commons image File:Thermodynamic schools (connection diagram) 1000x920.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 *'''Delete'''. There is zero commentary on this specific image. In order to properly use this photo, you have to find sources that actually discuss it specifically (and not just the event that the photo depicts -- this is a subtle difference). BB7 above me says there is no alternative in the Commons category of the same quality; unfortunately that is ''irrelevant''. The true question is, do we have a replacement that serves the ''same encyclopedic purpose'', which as many have already pointed out, is to show the violent treatment of Jews at the hands (or feet, in this case) of Nazis. So looking through what we have finds us these possibilities:
 <center><gallery perrow=6>
+*'''Keep and Oppose deletion''' (strongly) per [[User:Yad Vashem]], and [[User:SlimVirgin]].~~~~
 File:Polish farmers killed by German forces, German-occupied Poland, 1943.jpg
 File:WWII Krakow - 04.jpg