Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This image was nominated for deletion on 2007 August 21. The result of the discussion was keep in Darwin's Black Box,

remove from Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity..

1 About the template at the top of this page
2 rationale for intelligent design
3 Removal of fair use rationale
4 Use of this image in Irreducible complexity
5 Specific comments on use rationale for Intelligent design
6 Giving up
7 Irreducible complexity

[edit] About the template at the top of this page

BASICS: Please note the following:

See WP:DGFA

An IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

*Remove from usage on Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity, retain for use on the book's article. In the first 2 articles, the image does not satisfy the criterion of WP:NFCC#8 - removal of the image from those articles would have a negligible impact on the reader's understanding of either of those topics. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some 12 users expressed their preferred outcome as explicit "keep". One of them, User:Dave souza, expressed that discussion should defer to the local consensus. Five users explicitly expressed a preference to "delete" or "remove" from articles other than the article on Darwin's Black Box. Those users were: User:Angr, User:Anrie, User:Quadell, User:ElinorD and User:Borisblue. Along with the nominator, User:Videmus Omnia, that makes six users who expressed an explicit preference to remove from Intelligent design and Michael Behe. Note carefully that these six users who voted or explicitly expressed their preference are all regulars around those parts of the wiki where the focus is upon deletion of images. Note also that the explicit preferences to keep the images in the additional two articles, intelligent design and Michael Behe, were expressed not only by regular participants in the local consensus process in the intelligent design project, but also of various other participants, including the Director of the featured articles project. In this instance, not only did Nv8200P overrule a lack of consensus to delete from these two articles per WP:DGFA, but also overruled a clear consensus to keep the image in these two articles. ... Kenosis 13:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rationale for intelligent design

I'm removing the dispute of the rationale for intelligent design.

NFCC #8 currently states: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. The template implies that the image must be necessary to the article, and thus misrepresents NFCC #8. Therefore, it represents the subjective impression of the user who placed the template rather than an expression of a valid NFCC criterion, so the template will be promptly removed.

Several books are watersheds in the advocacy of intelligent design. The most important ones to date are Of Pandas and People, Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box. The rationale is beyond adequate. ... Kenosis 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The non-free book cover is not necessary to discuss this book in context of the article. Removal of the image from the article would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since #8 is a subjective criterion, it must be decided by consensus. This has already been consensused by the article editors that this image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. If a new consensus is sought, please join in on the article discussion and attempt to affect consensus. ... Kenosis 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And subjective is an understatement: I tire of this self-righteous wiki-lawyering piffle by folks like Abu Badali and "We see everything". Why not just get rid of all images based on the criterion of #8? We'll just ignore the fact that mankind has used images to further comprehension for 10,000 years or more. This shit of trying to delete every image is Philistine pig-ignorance at its most depraved level. •Jim62sch• 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the template, seems unwarranted. I also suggest writing and adding a proper free use justification by using the Template:Non-free_use_rationale thusly:

Description= Darwins Black Box cover

Source= Scan of original

Portion= Cover

Low_resolution= It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.

Purpose= It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.

Replaceability= It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

other_information= The image is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.

Odd nature 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to image pages, and am not sure of the conventions that apply. But with respect to the rationale for use of this image in various contexts.

In Darwin's Black Box it is obviously justified, and I do not think this is under dispute. It is a fair use illustration of the book that is the page's topic.
In Irreducible Complexity it is plainly justified, being an illustration of the book that introduced the concept and the term, and which remains the sole significant readily available published work on the topic. Irreducible complexity is taken from Darwin's Black Box; it is the primary idea advanced in the book. The two are inseparable.
In Intelligent Design it is justified; though in this case it might be helpful to give an argument for its relevance, for newcomers to the topic. The book illustrated is highly significant for the intelligent design movement and stands out as the most prominent work associated with the design movement that is arguably written by a practicing biologist. (Actually, one could dispute whether the author actually practices biology over the last ten years or so; but that is being petty, and I wouldn't want to do that....) The image is appropriately placed with the section of the article in irreducible complexity, where it is highly relevant and contributes to understanding. The ID article is illustrated with other major relevant works, in their appropriate sections. The one major omission might be an image for The Design Inference by William Dembski, but in that case the author is illustrated with the appropriate section on Specified Complexity. This is appropriate, as in the case of the Design Inference the book is known for its author whereas for Darwin's Black Box the author is known for the book. I comment here as someone who has read the books and followed the debate for some years.

In my opinion, the image is very apt and contributes substantively and significantly to all three articles. Hope this helps. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not, as Duae_Quartunciae has said, about newcomers who do not understand the topic. Rather, this appears demonstrably to be about the idea that WP images and other media should ideally all be "free". (See e.g. a notable "everybody should be free' advocate, along with severeal other notable "everybody should be free" advocates such as another notable 'everybody should be free" advocate, and maybe yet another "everybody should be free" advocate. [check links for specifics]) Whatever. ... Kenosis 03:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have a lawyer we can consult about such things now (User:Mikegodwin). We can also contact the copyright holders and try to make these free images. I get tired of just bashing my head on a brick wall with someone who repeats the same stupid mantra over and over like a recording.--Filll 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood, Filll. With time, WP users will become more familiar with the relevant basics of copyright. Presently there is a lot of myth still in the mix. Often "free licences" have more limitations than "fair use" and public domain images. Folks will get better at it with time, and many more free-licensed images will come into play too. It would be great if book publishers, for instance, started attaching free licenses to the low-resolution images of their books, and I wouldn't be completely surprised if that started happening (though I'm not holding my breath). For now, I agree this is a pain. ... Kenosis 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming more common. For example, I was able to convince Steve Diet Goedde to release some of his photos, in a low-resolution version, to us under the GFDL - that was the exact case that I made to him, that low-resolution free versions caused no harm to the commercial value of the photos and drew attention to his work. I have high hopes this will become more prevalent. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Yes, but in the meantime we have an encyclopedia to do! (although the pay stinks of course ;-). I'll drop you a note later on about this "free-license"/"fair-use" scuffle. Fact is, a lot of the free licenses are less free than a lot of fair use. But I don't quite have adequate time to put it together right now. Later. ... Kenosis 05:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of fair use rationale

Whether it's used in the article or not, it isn't ok to remove the fair use rationale. That action strikes me as a clear violation of fair use policy. Guettarda 23:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the IfD close

You can't close a deletion debate as anything other than a "keep" or "delete"...the debate was clearly a keep. Guettarda 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure you can. We pursue creative alternatives sometimes. -Nv8200p talk 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can come to conclusions that bear no relationship to reality. But then don't pretend otherwise. Guettarda 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said at Image talk:Darwin on Trial.jpg, it seems reasonable. I've been following and participating in image policy debates for some time, and if a rationale does not comply with WP:NFCC, it would seem illogical to leave it there. I recently removed a non-free image of Saddam from the article about 2006. As it happened, the image was subsequently deleted, but at the time, it had a Fair Use rationale saying that it showed how easily Saddam sat on his throne! What I see happening here seems perfectly in keeping with image policy as interpreted by people like Jimbo or Mindspillage, whenever they weigh in on such issues. ElinorD (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You see it that way, and I respect your opinion. But that doesn't mean your opinion is correct. "Fair use" is often a lot freer than alleged GFDL images - unlike the GFDL, which has, last I checked, never been tested in court, fair use has an established history. A valid fair use rationale exists for this image. Guettarda 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On what basis does someone with no obvious legal training make the decision to override consensus on this issue? Guettarda 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Being the closing admin on more IFDs than I can remember and getting beat up on my own similar images that were deleted over and over again and recent deletion reviews that upheld similar decisions when a non-free image can be used. -Nv8200p talk 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See Image:John Cleese.jpg for a precedent for closing the debate with "keep" for one article and "delete" for another. ElinorD (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate by precedent, it operates by consensus (within a certain set of limits). Guettarda 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One of those limits being policy, which is interpreted by admins in closing deletion discussions. Those decisions are appealed at deletion review - but I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of this image in Irreducible complexity

Over the past 24 hours, the fair use of this image in the Irreducible complexity has been disputed. So far, the dispute has been documented only in the edit summaries (shown below).

10:47, 4 September 2007 user:Nv8200p Origins - Remove copyrighted image. Not fair use in this article.

11:54, 4 September 2007 user:Kenosis Replacing image, which had adequate consensus here and at the recent IfD. It squarely meets Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images #1, and had not consensus to remove under NFCC #3 or #8

16:24, 4 September 2007 user:Nv8200p Reverted edits by Kenosis (talk) to last version by Nv8200p

16:31, 4 September 2007 user:Odd nature Consensus at Wikiproject ID is to keep it

16:37, 4 September 2007 user:Nv8200p Reverted edits by Odd nature (talk) to last version by Nv8200p

17:50, 4 September 2007 user:Guettarda rv; please don't use rollback on good faith edits if you can't be bothered to explain your rationale

19:32, 4 September 2007 user:Nv8200p →Origins - Removing image This image is does not meet Wikipedia policy for book covers when being used in this article.

19:50, 4 September 2007 user:Rossami restoring the image pending resolution of the dispute on the image's Talk page

19:56, 4 September 2007 user:Nv8200p →Origins - Removing image This image is does not meet Wikipedia policy for book covers when being used in this article.

22:15, 4 September 2007 user:Guettarda rv, consensus prior to this evening says otherwise

Note: There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 21#Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg which concluded that the image itself should be kept but did not reach consensus on where it should/could be used. I do not personally have an opinion except that edit warring on the article page is a poor way to resolve the dispute. Please sort it out here, then implement the answer. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: There seems to be another related discussion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 21#Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg Rossami (talk)

The original complaint was "Remove from usage on Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity." The decision was "Images removed from articles per Wikipedia policy on non-free content and image copyright tag requirements" -Nv8200p talk 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Using this image anywhere but in the article on the book itself violates Wikipedia's policy on book covers and non-free images in general. Please do not revert the image back in. take the issue to deletion review, RFC or ARBCOM which ever you chose. -Nv8200p talk 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That is how the image policy is generally interpreted across various articles, except by people who are very involved in a particular article and have little or no experience in image work. No offence to any of the editors here. It's just what happens in many, many articles, to the chagrin of the article writers, who, understandably, want to make their article better. ElinorD (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's being discussed now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_at_Intelligent_design_and_associated_articles. -Nv8200p talk 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BASICS: Please note the following:

Re-read WP:DGFA

An IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

*Remove from usage on Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity, retain for use on the book's article. In the first 2 articles, the image does not satisfy the criterion of WP:NFCC#8 - removal of the image from those articles would have a negligible impact on the reader's understanding of either of those topics. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of a book cover image in an article except the article about the book is a clear violation of our nonfree media policy. A book cover image can add no substantial understanding to the reader except to illustrate what the book cover looks like. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

W.r.t. the use of the words "our non-free media policy", this appears to be a noticeable trend, the use of the word "our ... policy" by anti-fair-use advocates. Without analyzing it great detail at the moment, it says a great deal about what we're dealing with here. ... Kenosis 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When I say "our policy" I mean the policy of English Wikipedia. I use "our" to emphasize that this is a policy that can't get overruled at whim by editors of a particular article, any more than WP:V can be. I didn't have a role in writing WP:NFCC, and in fact was not involved with images until it after it was in essentially its current form. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As a general principle, a cover often contains visual elements that give more than only showing what it looks like. Each case should be taken on its merits. I would also like to see more appreciation being given to the consensus of people who work on articles for the significance of a contributions.

I have two cases in mind. One is "Darwin's Black Box", and the other is " Of Pandas and People". In this case, there is significant additional information in the cover image, showing a man and a chimpanzee back to back. This is actually enormously sigificant in the intelligent design topic. One of the major issues with the whole brouhaha over intelligent design is whether or not it is religious in nature. A common refrain of the ID advocates (in the public arena at least) is that ID is just a another scientific idea, and that it is not the same as creationism. In particular, ID advocates often note that they are not opposed to the idea of common descent, but rather are proposing that some kind of design was involved in the development of life. This book, by Behe, is the best shot they have at a book by a working biologist. (Sometimes people quibble the actually Behe is a biochemist; but this distinction misses the point. Behe is a scientist. His field is directly involved in the relevant biology, and the biochemistry of life is particularly well suited for sorting out evolutionary issues.) The book gives technical information, relating in particular to complex biochemical systems deep within the cell.

And yet.. lo and behold .. look what goes on the cover! It's a subtle but direct appeal to the common descent issue and to the objections people have to relationships between humans and other animals. This cover has immediate and substantive relevance to the intelligent design debate not merely because it shows what a relevant book looks like, but because the chosen iconography reveals the underlying considerations of the whole ID/creationist movement. The chosen illustration is not about molecular machines or irreducible complexity. It is about evolution as relationships, not as process at all.

On the other hand, the image for Pandas is primarily for identification; it has less significance bound up in the image itself. The iconography of Pandas is a clear appeal to the "Pandas Thumb", a classic example of exaptation in evolution. The iconography in Pandas is interesting, but not particularly as a way of giving understanding to intelligent design.

The iconography of Darwin's Black Box is massively significant, specifically because of the visual elementary chosen and the visual impact intended. It pertains directly to some of the most important issue in the who ID debate, and this significant goes far beyond just knowing what the book looks like. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the significance of the iconography to the rationale. But actually there is a much more general problem here. This is likely to be disputed by the ID advocates (of course!) and is properly seen within the whole context of the ID debate, in the ID article. We have several cases of real substantive significant contributions being lost because those who are concerned to get rid of non-free images are so focused on making policy as strong as they can manage that they simply do not take proper recognition of the content knowledge of people working on the article, often just presuming unfairly that it is all about decoration. It isn't. And it takes time to get up to speed on all the background that pertains to this.

For the significance of an equation, non-experts are generally happy to defer to people familiar with the topic and able to explain the equation. But when it comes to images, too many people seem to think that anyone can just look at an image and tell immediately what is or is not significant. A little thought would show that is not the case; there is significant information in the visual presentation of a painting that will be lost on a newcomer, but which is there all the same and available to be learned as you read up more thoroughly. Understanding is not just a binary yes/no proposition. This image gives significant understanding of great relevance to the intelligent design debate, in a way that goes beyond merely identifying a book. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And it can be more than the iconography. A book cover image of a book mentioned or discussed in an article enhances the readers' understanding nearly 100% of the time where it is chosen to be used in an article on the book, on the author, and/or on the subject matter of the book. The full range of reasons I don't have time to anywhere near fully convey right now. But among the main ones are that visual learners learn better from images than from text. And that includes many people who are not only visual learners but also many who are both verbal and visual learners, which actually is the vast majority of people. Additionally, the cover image also informs the reader of the article how the author and publisher chose to present the topic to the public. Further yet, the rendering of the fact of certain books that are prominent in a subject, and/or article on the author provide visual references that, in essence, tell the reader that the book title in the image is of importance in a way the mere text never does by using the words, e.g. "Book X is an important book w.r.t. the subject matter of this article", even if you put it in bold typeface (which typically looks quite trite by itself anyway). Placed in an image caption, the words "Book X is an important book w.r.t. the subject matter of this article" provide explanatory value to numerous readers of the article, with no diminishing of understanding or enjoyment by those who are excellent textual learners. And further yet, such an image provides a visual offset (different from visual learning per se) that provides a mental break from which most readers (not all, but most) return to the body text able to absorb more textual material than if the image had not been placed there (don't have the studies to cite at present, but suffice it to say here that it has been studied professionally and major book publishers of non-fiction material and periodicals are well aware of this fact). At the moment, I merely add these to what Duae Quartunciae has outlined above. ... Kenosis 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Our use of nonfree material must be minimal. Repeating the image of a book cover every time the book is mentioned is not minimal use, it's maximal use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is quite incorrect, it is not "maximal" use even by the imagination of a four-year old kid. Nor does "minimal" mean "just in the article on the book per se" either. The very notion that "minimal" means "just one copy" or "just in one article, the one on the book itself" unfortunately is purely a mistake, an arbitrary fantasy, arrived at out of ignorance of the relevant concerns. Some of the most important U.S. legal cases regarding "fair use", or "minimal" use, involved hundreds of thousands of reproductions. The criterion of "minimal", in the "real world", is satisfied by the fact that the cover image is a minimal portion of the total sum of the copyrighted work, and is in fact the part that the publisher intentionally puts out into the public to help sell the book, and does not detract even one tiny bit from the copyright holder's ability to make money from it -- if anything it's the other way around. Thus, the mere use of the cover image -- in fact it's a low-resolution version of the cover image -- is minimal use... Kenosis 10:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I am not proposing that the book be illustrated every time it is mentioned. I am happy with the existing guideline, that requires every use to have a rationale. In my view, as explained above, the rationale for use of this image in Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity is strong, and goes well beyond decoration or merely illustrating the book, in a way that is of immediate significant to the article topic. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Duae, are there any references for the claimed significance of the book cover's iconography? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I am not going to break my neck finding out. Anything you did find would probably be a personal website or blog, and could be dismissed on that basis. Basically, I am telling you what amounts to my expert opinion on the significance of the image. I'd be very cautious about writing that into the article, because of OR concerns. On the other hand, I think it is pretty blisteringly obvious once you learn more about the topic; I don't think my statement is at all dubious; but it is OR by wikipedia standards. The point is, my statement is not in the article. It is simply explaining that iconography actually does have significance.

The best thing to do here, in my view, is to give the image without overmuch analysis. If there is a demand to insert long justifications into the article, and then have that justification backed up with reliable sources, then this IMO stands as just another case of trying to mangle the content to force fit compliance with the essentially arbitrary demands of the no non-free content drive. The whole thing is wasting time and degrading the content of articles.

Cover images are (surprise!) chosen to have a particular impact. They evoke associations and ideas. Detailed analysis of the image itself is mostly distracting. If there is a reasonable case given that the image IS actually making a relevant contribution through the image itself, then the best thing is to have the image, with all its potential for added understanding bound up within the image itself, and leave it pretty much at that. It IS relevant and significant information. In my view a plausible account of the significance of the iconography ought to be enough to satisfy the demand that the image itself is actually contributing to understanding. Having given that, then let's for heavens sake LET the damned image makes its contribution.

I don't think you'll find my comments at all controversial with the large numbers of editors here who have been working on this excellent article. That should count for something. These are the people who have the best judgment on whether an image actually bears upon the topic of the article. If I was just one person claiming significance, then you could be dubious. I'm not.

My concern here is that we have a bunch of newcomers to the topic who are out to get rid of the image if at all possible. I'm ready to give up on this point. I think there is a strong drive against non-free content, and that it is becoming more trouble than it is worth to try and keep a more sane perspective of the matter. Wikipedia is the poorer for it, in my opinion, but hey. There's pluses and minuses. Wikipedia stands out for being available to anyone to edit, and this has been a major factor in its success. The free content has also been an important factor; and some folks take that as some kind of grand principle in its own right. I don't have a horse in that race, but I acknowledge the contribution of those who care about the principle of free information. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might just say: Darwin's Black Box is the book that set out Irreducible Complexity. Of Pandas and People was at the heart of the Kitzmiller trial, and the first Intelligent Design book. In other words, both books are key parts of the topics. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific comments on use rationale for Intelligent design

Here is the rationale currently in place for use in Intelligent design.

The image shows one of the most significant published works advocating the idea of intelligent design.
The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing with irreducible complexity.
This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for browsers of the book on irreducible complexity. The impact is concerned with questioning evolutionary relationships; whereas the book is often being touted as questioning evolutionary processes and not being opposed to shared ancestry. The cover iconography is a graphic demonstration of how ID works are used as a kind of stalking horse for creationism.
The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.

[edit] Point 1

We could merely state in the text "one of the most significant works is...". No image of the book cover is needed for the reader to understand that the book is influential. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By that rationale why have images on Wikipedia at all? I don't find this compelling reasoning to not include images. Odd nature 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The strongest case for nonfree images is for iconic pieces of art such as Guernica (painting). Book covers are a much weaker use at all, and there is no unanimity that there is ageneric case to be made for including book covers. But regardless of whether book cover images appear on articles about the books themselves, they need not appear on other articles as well. This is in line with the "minimal use" provision of the nofnree media policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And that is merely one person's interpretation of the legal term minimal. See Kenosis' post above for a more specific reason why your argument has no clothes. Oddly enough, I know of no publisher bitching that a book or magazine or album cover was used on any artical, nor are they likely to raise any objections for obvious reasons. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The term minimal here isn't a legal term, it's from WP:NFCC#3. It's motivated as much by concerns about free content as by fair use requirements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 2

I don't fully understand this rationale. The section header provides identification of the section of the article without the need for an image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What, you think they're there for decoration? Helping readers recognizing significant concepts and facts is the only reason to have images, period. And hhen the book covers are provided readers will immediately recognize the book as a notable book in the ID debate when seeing it on the shelf at the bookstore, his library or church. Odd nature 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is related to this part of the rationale (about how this image identifies the section of the article). In any case, having an image of a book cover for the purpose of identifying the book is only an article about the book itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that these images on the ID article are used primarily for decoration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, we have your opinion which is based on, well, just your own feelings. Legally there is no issue. From a standpoint of improving comprehension of the subject, you're likely missing the point: the picture show just how much the ID movement is part of the culture wars, or if you prefer, an attempt at social engineering. •Jim62sch• 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how it illustrates that? It just looks like a book cover to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae made a fairly detailed post in the section above this one which answers your question. Rossami (talk)

He said a lot there, and I don't really understand his argument. In the end, he seemed to fall back on "trust me, if you knew more you would understand." Can you give a short explanation of how the book image shows "just how much the ID movement is part of the culture wars"? The book cover doesn't mention culture wars, and I'm sure there are unimportant books with polemical covers as well.

Really, though, in this section I'm trying to discuss the second point of the rationale, which claims the image helps the reader identify the section of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 3

If we had a long section in the article with sources that state that this book is an example of "how ID works are used as a kind of stalking horse for creationism" then this might be an acceptable rationale. But if we don't have any published sources discussing the importance of the cover of this book, we can't have such a section in the article, and so we can't claim that the image is used to support such commentary in the article. If we don't make a claim in prose, we can't include images with the goal of making that claim implicitly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The exact claim made about the book in the article is "The concept of irreducible complexity was introduced in Michael Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box." That claim an be understood perfectly without a cover image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comment for point 2. Ditto here. Odd nature 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 4

This is a rationale for the article about the book itself. We could have a link from other articles to the article on the book to help readers who want to learn more about the book qua publication. In many cases the author, title, and ISBN are more important for locating the book than the cover art. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The book's only notability is as a ID book. Thus it is just as appropriate to use it in ID articles as it is at the article on the book. Taking your reasoning here to its logical conclusion, the project should simply remove all images of book covers and replace them with the ISBN, the title and the author. Odd nature 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are people who advocate the removal all all book cover images unless the book cover itself was notable as apiece of art. I am willing to compromise to allow book cover images on articles about the books themselves, although this is already stretching the nonfree media policy thin. If the book is notable as an ID book, we can simply say so - the image of the cover doesn't demonstrate that the book is notable or help the reader understand that the book is notable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And who are these people? See my last two posts, Kenosis' and Odd Nature's posts, put them together and you have a complete rebuttal of this alleged advocacy. •Jim62sch• 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One key reason we don't have templated fair use rationales for uses like book cover images on articles about the books is opposition to the claim that this usage is always acceptable. Look through the archives of WT:NONFREE for discussions about that topic (this is related to images of album covers and corporate logos as well). — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in this discussion is arguing that a fair-use claim on book covers is always acceptable. What I see people arguing is that you can not say that they are always unacceptable - that it's a judgment call which must be decided on a case-by-case basis after fully evaluating the degree of use and the context. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving enough context. The issue there was: is it always acceptable to have an image of a book cover on the article about the book itself? There is not agreement about that, which is why we don't have boilerplate rationales for that use.

But anyway the articles we are discussing here is not an article about the book, it's the intelligent design article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giving up

As noted previously in another image discussion, I am just giving up on this. The attempt to have arbitration look at this was a good idea, but they don't seem inclined to take it up. There are plainly factions within wikipedia who are resolutely opposed to non-free images and will make every attempt to interpret the guidelines as restrictively as possible, citing the Foundation's March 2007 resolution as an indication that this is the intent. There is also a faction who want to allow the use of non-free images where fair use applies and where the image makes a contribution to the quality of information content, with this interpreted generously and decided basically by a consensus of article editors; citing the en.wikipedia policy that stands as a recognized exemption doctrine policy for the foundations' resolution, in which it is explicitly recognized that free use and high quality are in tension with each other.

As the efforts to resolve issues surrounding individual images proceed, the demands and requirements loaded upon image use will end up distorting the content of articles as some editors strive to meet each new demand of the warriors, but this invariably leads to just finding more excuses to dismiss images.

The discussion is also disruptive and filled with snide insults each way. The claim that these images are just for decoration is fundamentally a refusal to assume good faith, made by clueless nitwits coming fresh to the topic, who are determined to see nothing but the worst and willing to run roughshod over the consensus and the input of editors who actually work on the topic.

I see no prospect for a happy solution here. The normal wikipedia notion of consensus is out the window. The advocates for strong restrictions and removal of as many non-free images as possible appeal to a somewhat dubious consensus in the policy discussion areas, and then sally forth under that banner to look at particular cases with jaundiced eye and with superficial grasp of the subject. It then becomes a content debated at the article page, with the problem that consensus is not enough to retain the image. You have to actually persuade the individual advocates for delete; and that never works. Sufficiently obdurate determination by individuals is invincible in debate.

I see no prospect for a happy resolution here; and am tired of beating my head against a brick wall. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is a topic that was introduced, for all intents and purposes, in Darwin's Black Box. It does make sense to show where it came from.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District centred on Of Pandas and People. Of Pandas was also the first book to set out Intelligent design.

Darwin on Trial is, however, not particularly notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)