Image talk:Qana massacre.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that this image was deleted 2-3 times already, and continuously uploaded by user:Banzoo. Needless to say, it is both a graphic image, and its fair-use rationale seems shaky at best. Tewfik^Talk 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture is perfectly fair use, no problem at all with its status. I strongly demand to be notified if procedure regarding its status is started and i strongly oppose this picture being deleted out of process. --Striver 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

regarding being graphic, compare to [1], a fair use image one of MANY. --Striver 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you think this image is comparable with that picture from the Armenian Genocide. A more appropriate example would be every other article in the ME conflict, from which gory pictures are denied placement. I'm somewhat puzzled by your other comments, as this is the process, and I don't see any reason why you should demand notification from me, since you didn't upload it or make use of it AFAIK. And as a generic picture of a dead child that is neither iconic nor famous in and of itself, I fail to see how this twice deleted photo qualifies for Wikipedia:Fair use#Images. Tewfik^Talk 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added the rationale. The comparison is not on the scale of the events, rather on a principle. Further that picture is far more "gory" than this one, she has even her cloth on. --Striver 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The source is not so important. The information for it could be useful, but since we are invoking fair use, it will be just as vaild no mater the source. We already know that it is from 1996 and from TV. --Striver 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the {{fair use disputed}} template before any objective party had a chance to weigh in was an unprofessional act. If you truly believe that you are in the right, then there is no reason to prevent someone else from judging the fair use rationale for this twice deleted, thrice uploaded image. Tewfik^Talk 09:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know, when this image was deleted twice or 3 times as Tewfik suggests , there were no warning, no discussion, no votes. And considering the fair use arguments provided by Striver, they seem to be very reasonable. And I dont see how this image violates the Fair use. Now that the source have been provided, why still keeping the no source tag?--Banzoo 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. As another uninvolved party, I completely fail to see how WP:FUC are not held up here. Also, before stating that the image is too graphic, please recall that Wikipedia is not censored. The lack of source info is a slight problem (it would be far better to be able to identify the broadcast, not just the website that contains the screencap), however, in the page's current state, I beleive Fair Use is met. This conversation has been stalled for several days now, so I suppose I will be bold and remove the fair use notice - but not the source info one. -Seidenstud 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are actually the first uninvolved party advocating for the picture. The issue is not censorship, but WP:NPOV. I point you to Quadell's comments on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, which make the point more concisely. Tewfik^Talk 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, our guidelines for fair use on TV screenshots require that the article mention the TV program in question, not just the event covered. Reinserting fair use notice. (And the image could still be speedy-deleted under the "unsourced" notice.) Hence it fails point 6 and possibly point 4 for WP:FUC. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See the detailed description at {{tv-screenshot}}; that's an and for the two bullet points, not an or. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, there are several people, some non-involved, that do not agree. --Striver 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That should be discussed there or at WP:FUC, rather than here. It's clear there that it's an and. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the "is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory -- the program needs to be c", then i will counter it with this: in my opinion this is satisfactory. --Striver 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment there. WP:FUC is policy, and point 6 is clearly not met for this image. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

point 6 is "The material must meet the media-specific policy requirements.". And "is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory -- the program needs to be c" is not a policy it is a... a.... tada... make a gues.. a.... opinion! --Striver 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a media-specific policy. (Although the Foundation should weigh in on fair use. In my opinion, the owner of the copyright on the picture could apply for a takedown through DMCA.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)