Talk:Joe Carr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article should be deleted. This guy is an insignificant loser and not important enough to have a page in an encycylopedia.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Name 2 Corrie Photos 3 Frontpage.com 4 Iraq 5 Hurndall 6 Image 7 "safty concerns" 8 How this image is fair use

[edit] Name

How do we know that Joe Carr, and not Joseph Smith, is the real or main name? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't. Frontpage is not very reliable. TroiS6 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the citation about Carr also being Smith, from Frontpage to Carr's website, where he himself uses both names. 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the footnote from the Frontpage site to the Lawrence.com site. The latter is more reliable, and the former is sited again still, at the bottom of the article. I also added a bit about the Carr working with CPT in Iraq. TroiS6 04:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim - Frontpage is not reliable. Either another source is needed, or the Joe Smith part should come out. 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I think it's kind of funny to have Frontpage cited. TroiS6 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrie Photos

Considering all the fuss about the photos, it makes sense to point out that Carr is the one who shot them. All information verifying this seems to be with him using the name Smith - I think it is clear enough that they are the same person, and that this can be said, and then the link to the Jordan's article should suffice. I added that link under references also, it is important as it is a legit souce that explicitly states that Smith/Carr took the photos. TroiS6 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the photo should be removed. The photo is from Joe Carr's website, from a different page than where Joe Carr gives permission to use photos.TroiS6 01:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In the article, it says "Carr, a United States citizen, said he took photographs of Corrie standing in front of a bulldozer and of her later lying in the arms of her friends, [1] though this has been questioned. [2]" What does this mean? What "has been questioned"? That he took the photos, that she was standing in front of a bulldozer, that she was lying in the arms of her friends? None of that is questioned in the link provided. Please explain. Mgaines 13:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frontpage.com

Nice job cleaning up things up folks. Thanks. I do think it comes of as kind of silly though, for this article, and the one about Brian Avery, for the first refernence to be to Frontpage. Regardless of whether or not you think it is a reliable source, at least 50% of the people who might find themselves wanting to look up an entry about these people think Frontpage is a bunch of bull. Some people would say David Horowitz has basically tried to declare war on academic freedom, with his book about the "most dangerous professors in America". Maybe you believe that stuff, but his brand of politics is extremely hostile - it's the kind of stuff that could lead to people's careers being put in jeapardy - and now, more than ever, the mere sight or mention of his website and magazine is enough to get many academic's (especially in the US) emotions riled up. I strongly suggest we not use Frontpage magazine as a primary source - especially not the very first source in the article.TroiS6 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

Joe Carr was working in Iraq recently with Christian Peacemaker teams. Anyone want to write about that? http://www.selvesandothers.org/article9820.html TroiS6 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurndall

I've deleted the details of the trial because this article is about Carr. I've also tidied the article a little so it conforms to our manual of style. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

You'll need to put a source up for the image or the image police will delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have run out of time and won't be able to work on this anymore for a while. I would appreciate it if someone else who wants to could check about permission for the photo. It is from http://www.lawrence.com/news/2006/jan/05/joecarr/ TroiS6 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Submitted a wikipedia request for permission; will update one way another when I get a response. TroiS6 07:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not allowed to use photographs with permission, Troi. It needs to be given to us to use under a free licence, or else we can claim fair use, but either way you need to put a link on the image page to the source i.e. where you got it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The same IP address, 192.211.25.9 (talk • contribs), that has been making pro-ISM edits to Talk:Rachel Corrie, and which resolves to the Evergreen State College in Olympia, posted to the reference desk claiming to be Joe Carr [1] and asking that the image be removed from this page. The same IP has also posted as (this is admitted) TroiS6 (talk • contribs) and Jonathansword (talk • contribs). I doubt that Evergreen only has one IP address, so this is likely to be the same person, yet bizarrely it was User:TroiS6 who added the image in the first place, [2] so it looks like someone is playing games. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings again from that same ip address. I would like people reading this to know that I am not Joe Carr. Also, I did admit on user SlimVirgin's talk page to having created an account previously under the name Jonathansword - I know someone who goes to Evergreen who has a blog called Jonathan's word, and I that was why I chose that name, but then I realized it might look like I was that person, and so I created a new user name. I was not trying to deceive anyone, and I didn't really think about how people might do that sort of thing (create multiple user names) in order to make it look like more people than just one have a certain point of view. Again, I was not trying to misrepresent myself. That was why I changed user names, so that I would not be doing that. If Joe has asked the picture to be removed, I don't see why it is so important to leave it up. He says he's an anarchist. I doubt he would sue anyone for "copyright" violation. Probably that's why other websites have stolen his image without his permission and don't remove it. He probably chooses just to ignore them, figuring anyone who is likely to want to really hear what he has to say won't pay attention to those websites anyway. Just because he doesn't act like John Sigenthawler doesn't mean you have to be so disrespectful. I have said before, on another talk page -- you guys are politically motivated, and you don't even see it, because you don't want to. TroiS6 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "safty concerns"

The photo that"Joe carr" asked us to remove out of concerns for his safty is also on his own web site: [3] Zeq 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed that out to him. He might feel that Wikipedia reaches a wider audience. StuRat 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So he only want people who support his cause, and thus visit his website, to know what he looks like? Unless Joe explains on this talk page his reasoning, I won't even consider not including his picture. -- Zanimum 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He only wants to keep his pic out of the hands of people who want to kill him, yes. Does this surprise you ? StuRat 15:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It does and doesn't surprise me. He emailed OTRS recently, complaining only of copyright. If he didn't want everyone and anyone in the world finding the pic, he could have made his site "norobot" meaning search engines can't index it. -- Zanimum 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This article (which I started to shed some light on what went on Rafah the day Rachel died) is not by itself important. If Mr. Carr (or Smith or Sword) or what ever his name is does not want Wikipedia to show his picture and Mr. Carr only tells us more about himself and how trustworthy he should be as a source (after all anyone googling his ma e will get to his photo anyhow) . BTW, since Mr. Carr took the famous photo of Corrie, maybe he can release the high resolution image so it can be examined ...... Zeq 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How this image is fair use

1. No free equivalent is available, however one could be created.
2. The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product.
3. Used sparingly; just one picture serves the purpose adequately.
4. The material was previously been published.
5. The material is encyclopedic and otherwise meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
6. The material meets the media-specific policy requirements.
7. The material must be used in at least one article.
8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).

-- Zanimum 14:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)