Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 27

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg

Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by CorranH96 (notify | contribs).

• This famous photograph by Associated Press should only be used to illustrate a discussion about this notable image itself. But It's currently being used (in 6 different articles!!) to illustrate the event depicted in the image, what replaces the original market role for the photograph. If someone volunteers to write an (sourced) article or section about the image, I'm willing to withdrawn the nomination and write a valid fair use rationale. But this image can't continue to be used by Wikipedia the way it is today. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• "The original market role for the photograph"? I don't even know what that supposed to mean. Keep instructive, historically-significant image. Multiple usage looks fine. El_C 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That means that we cannot compete in the same marketplace as the Associated Press -- our use of the image must be transformative, meaning that it needs to serve a different purpose than the AP's. Their market is people/companies who want to use it to illustrate their articles. Right now, we are using it for the same purpose. Compare this to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, another AP photo. We are using that photo in order to discuss the photo's impact on culture. Same with the photo in Kent State shootings -- there is considerable discussion of the image itself, as opposed to just the event being depicted in the image. See the difference? howcheng {chat} 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No comment. El_C 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I see you've been rendered speechless by my flawless logic. Victory is mine! :P howcheng {chat} 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That is incorrect. I wish not to comment because my comment would be offtopic. El_C 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. In this case, I believe the image is acceptable. Yes, it's borderline in regard to NFCC #2, but it obviously passes all the rest, and I think the benefits outweigh the costs. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could you elaborate on why do you think it's acceptable? That the benefits outweigh the costs is always truth when we're choosing to use a valuable image and refusing to pay for it. But we can't simply ignore AP business just because it's considerably convenient for us. Just as we can only use the Elian_Gonzalez image to talk about the Pulitzer Prize winner photograph, but not about the specifics of the rescue of the Cuban boy, we can only use Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg to talk about how famous and influent it is, and not to illustrate the article about the event depicted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree with your statement that our policy requires discussion of the image itself (see below). I think the marketing potential for the AP is slim or non-existent, and the importance to Wikipedia is great. It passes NFCC #1, #3, and #8 with flying colors. Does it pass #2? Probably, but it's gray area. I side with keeping the image in this case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  Quadell, I wonder what makes you believe that the "marketing potential for the AP is slim or non-existent". There's a huge marketing potential for this image. If Britannica decides to use this image to illustrate their article on the Munich Massacre, they will have to pay AP for that. If bbc.co.uk want's to use this image to illustrate an special report about the "Munich Olympic Games" to be online by the time of 2008 Olympic Games, they will have to pay AP for this. If some author wants to use this image as the cover of a book about "international conflicts in the 1970s", this author will have to pay for that. Basically, there's no reason to believe that we don't have to pay for using the most recognizable image for illustrating a given topic. There's no reason to believe we can simply stuck that image on the top of Munich Massacre and claim we're fairly using it. Please, rethink your argument. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - our non-free content policy does not forbid using images of events from being used to discuss those events. Certain copyright tags imply that only discussion on the image itself (not the event depicted) can justify the image's use, but our policy itself does not require that the image itself be discussed. It is acceptable (if all 10 NFCC are satisfied) to use a non-free image to depict an event when the event is noteworthy but the image itself is not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  Using images of events whose source is a news agency will almost always fair NFCC#2, as there's a market opportunity being lost every time someone uses one of these images this way for free. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  That's true, but it's a non-sequitur. I said that our policy does not require that articles discuss the image itself, but only the event. You continue to assert the opposite (above and below), but it's just not in our policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  I agree that it's not explicitly stated, but it can be derived from #2; if we use it in the same manner intended by the AP (to illustrate articles about the subject), then that's a copyright violation. But if our use is transformative, we have a valid fair use defense. It really shouldn't be that difficult to write an article about this specific image. It's so famous that it became used in the movie advertising for Spielberg's Munich (although we lack any such examples in the article). howcheng {chat} 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but remove from articles for which there is no specific fair use rationale written WP:NFCC#10-c. Videmus Omnia 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That it should be removed from articles where no fair use rationale is written is a no-brainer. If/when fair use rationales are written, it can be readded. WilyD 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And it should only be kept if the rationale is sound. Currently it only says that the image adds significantly but that its use for free won't detract the image's commercial value because it's low quality. The image is web-quality, and there's a whole market of websites for Associated Press to license this image at exactly this resolution (AP images used on bbc.co.uk, for instance, are usually not larger than this one). And it's exactly because this images adds significantly to a any text about the Munich Massacre that it's specially valuable to Associated Press.
      • That's speculative. Reasonable speculation, but I don't see any evidence that the AP has derived value from this image in years. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless we're going to use this image to discuss it's notability, we can't write a valid fair use rationale. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC

• Keep fix fair use rationale as needed. No need to process-wonk too much. -N 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  We have to fix the image use before we can fix the fair use rationale (as explained in the nomination). --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If we delete this image, I will step on a kitten's tail in misplaced vengeance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  I understand your frustration. It would be a pity to delete this image because, as the notable image it is, it has some encyclopedic value. But unfortunately, we're not using it properly. To use this image in an encyclopedia, we must either pay AP and use it to illustrate and article about the event, or fairly use it in an article mentioning the image's notability. Our current use is not transformative. We can't vote keep just because we like the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think you're taking into account how cute this kitten is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Raul654 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Kept. Use of the image was reduced to one article (Munich Massacre). The use of the image was changed and some minimal commentary added in the caption. Use of the image meets all criteria of WP:NFCC including NFCC#2, which expresses only "respect for commercial opportunties." Use of this very low resolution image on Wikipedia will not negatively impact any commercial opportunity for the AP. All of the examples Abu badali listed were commercial in nature and they would have to pay AP for the image. I could argue that use of the image on Wikipedia might actually be free advertisement for the image and entice customers who see it here to buy it. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to deletion review. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 03:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was}

[edit] Image:Yom_Kippur_War_1.jpg

Image:Yom_Kippur_War_1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Raul654 (notify | contribs).

• Impressive but unnecessary unfree image, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that can't be conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Abu badali is trying to eviserate this featured article. There are two pictures of combat, with no possibility of getting free ones, and he has nominated both for deletion. Raul654 00:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Does this image helps in the reader's understanding of the article about the "combat" in a way that words can not? I don't see how. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — The image is not critical. The image fails WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#2. SqlPac 05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm unsure why the Yom Kippur War article is targeted by these two editors (it does seem increasingly disruptive, however), but my latest transaltions, which are clearly distinct from one another, shows this to be a rather sophomoric effort, the codified language notwithstanding. Keep this one, too. El_C 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. Sorry, I have no idea who you are. There is nothing disruptive about pointing out shortcomings of content. AFAIK it happens all the time on Wikipedia. BTW, this nomination is about an image that is not one of your "transaltions", and I don't believe you uploaded it. This is about an image of six tanks, with one overturned in a ditch. This image is not referenced in the text. It appears to be used in such a way as to demonstrate the following historically significant event: "somewhere there were six tanks, then one of them got overturned in a ditch." If this tank getting overturned in a ditch (or the other five tanks idling around it) has a larger historical significance than this, its caption should be changed and its historical significance should be referenced in the article. This might greatly enhance the reader's understanding of the important role these six tanks played in the war effort or its resolution. Otherwise it should be deleted. SqlPac 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- fails NFCC #8. Take away the picture and the reader's comprehension of the article is not significantly impaired. howcheng {chat} 07:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the snide comments obliquely alleging bad faith are getting really tiresome, folks. If you want to discuss an editor, there are places to do that. Let's keep this about the image, okay? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe this image contributes to the understanding of the article in ways that text alone could not. (I'm not sure about the second one, below, however.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How exactly does it do that? It's a photo of a bunch of tanks sitting around (and one in the ditch), which is adequately explained by words. Even worse, there is no specific discussion of the events taking place in the photo that would cause a reader to say, "I really need to see a picture of this to understand what the article is talking about." howcheng {chat} 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Whether an image provides information in a way that words could not is largely subjective. For me, it does. Your mileage may vary. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, speedy keep - This is a public document and no one owns it. Translation from Hebrew to English is by the uploading WP editor. Editor proposing deletion is acting in a disruptive manner. Badagnani 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  Are you sure you're referring to the right image? This is not a translated document. It's a picture of some tanks. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep is adequately referenced in the article, is needed to illustrate what happened. -N 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is not "low resolution"

• If the image is insufficiently low resolution, isn't the smart thing to do to lower the resolution, rather than delete the image? If there's a consensus the resolution is too high, and nobody else has GIMP or photoshop or whatever, I'll happily lower the resolution. Cheers, WilyD 17:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That falls into the WP:SOFIXIT department. howcheng {chat} 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this and all of the following fail the "low resolution" standard per the above comment (unsigned), aside from that I am not familiar enough with the material to have an opinion on which are necessary. Max res should probably be whatever is used in the articles. I don't think images should be deleted for too high of resolution though, just fixed to be at very most 800x600 - probably 400x300 or 512x384, which if done with a good sampling image scaler would improve the quality a lot anyway, by getting rid of the halftone artifacts. The article does have severe formatting problems due to too many images and them being placed in consecutive sections (becomes a huge issue on higher resolution displays and widescreen, basically a bug in the wiki software but it can be worked around) - maybe suggest reducing number of images by eliminating the least important fair use ones, and definely reduce all of their absurdly high resoltions. In other words, some of these should probably be culled and they should all be scaled down to 1/4-1/8 the present sizes. I don't have time to pick which one to put a "delete" comment on but the pic spam in that article is out of hand. Try a gallery or something, huge blank spaces in the text from too many pics is not cool. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought this was what fair use was for. D. Recorder 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I note that this image has no fair-use rationale, and will therefore be deleted independently of the outcome of the discussion if that's not mended soon. If a fair-use rationale can be provided that reasonably addresses the point made by SqlPac above, then keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rationale added. Raul654 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The rationale added claims that the image is necessary to "illustrate combat operations in the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur War article", but currently the image is only used in Military history of Israel. Nevertheless, none of those articles discuss "combat operations" in enough details to need an illustration of such an specific event. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • • Swatjester removed them earlier in the week and I didn't notice. (He said they didn't have fair use rationales - true for this image, false for the other one) I've restored both of them to the article. As far as whether or not it is necessary to illustrate combat operations, a number of people here have disagreed with you on this point. Raul654 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I must say I'm not particularly convinced by this rationale. In fact, neither the article text nor the image caption nor the image description page even make clear which phase or which strategic situation of the campaign described in the text the image is supposed to match, so I'm not at all certain in what sense it is "illustrating" those combat operations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The picture caption ("Syrian tanks at Israeli anti-tank ditch in the Golan.") makes it perfectly clear that the picture illustrates the "Combat operations/On the Golan Heights" section. Not to mention the fact that its placement in the article puts it in the middle of that section. Raul654 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
              • The article needed some text to explain the picture instead of a picture to explain (illustrate) the text. I don't see how this image helps on the understanding of the article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image was deleted. Failed WP:NFCC 3a, 3b & 8. The image was being used in two articles and on a talk page. It should have been in the Yom Kippur War article only. The resolution was over 700K. These two items could have been fixed, but the image did not add significantly to the understanding of the article. Anti-tank ditches as an important military tactic in the war was not discussed anywhere in the article but in the caption of the image. -Nv8200p talk 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Yom_Kippur_War_2.jpg

Image:Yom_Kippur_War_2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Raul654 (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary unfree image, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Abu badali is trying to eviserate this featured article. There are two pictures of combat, with no possibility of getting free ones, and he has nominated both for deletion. Raul654 00:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As an unfree image, this shouldn't be "featured" on Portal:War/Featured article nor Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 30, 2006 to begin with (I'm sure you're familiarized with this). As for "pictures of combat", how does this picture helps in the understanding of the article about the "combat"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (1) I didn't put it on the portal, I can't speak for them. (2) As for it's use on the main page, that was accepted as standard practice until about 3 weeks ago, when a group of users, without consensus, declared that we wouldn't do it anymore. (3) Are you seriously asking how a pictures of combat in a war is applicable to an article about that war? Raul654 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm seriously asking how the current use of this picture is ok with item #8 of our policy on the usage of non-free material. I perfectly understand how is this image useful for the article. I hope you understand how this is not enough to justify the use of an non-free image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is the same case as Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg, where a notable event is being depicted in a photograph, but the photograph itself is not notable and is not required for the reader to understand the article. howcheng {chat} 00:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • In which case, there was never a consensus to delete during two deletion nominations and a deletion review. Raul654 00:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • "No clear consensus"? When User:BD2412, an admin and an intellectual property lawyer comes in and says usage of that photo was a clear copyright violation, I think that's a pretty strong statement for deletion. howcheng {chat} 05:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Again with codified-speak. Keep instructive image. El_C 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep - easily meets NFCC #8, the supposed major complaint. This is the only image of combat in the Yom Kippur War is said article. Now, maybe some editors have seen a lot of combat and "get it" from a few words, but us pasty-looking North Americans who've never been within 3000 km of a war need pictures to substantially enhance our understanding. Each war is different due to terrain, technology, et cetera - so a picture of the "specific war" is greatly needed. It seems unlikely new free images of the Yom Kippur war could be produced. The copyright holder only allows people to look at the image, as far as I can tell doesn't compete with our usage here in any meaningful way. [1] although someone who speaks Hebrew can probably confirm better. WilyD 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. The intent of NFCC #8 (full disclosure: I wrote the current version), is to ensure that there is a specific reason why this specific image is required for understanding the text. In Billy Ripken, the reader needs to see that exact baseball card (and not any other). In Demi Moore, no other magazine cover that she appears on can serve the same purpose. However, any image of the war would do the same job here. That's why #8 is not met here. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Now, perhaps, I'm beginning to understand why you cite #8 so often: you wrote it. Are you a lawyer? El_C 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Instead of the snide remarks, try addressing my primary concern: Why is this specific image (as opposed to any other image of the war) needed for reader comprehension? What text in the article requires this image for the reader to understand? howcheng {chat} 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Snide remarks such as familiarity with WP:CITE? So, I take it that's a no to my question? El_C 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • My apologies -- I don't normally let other editors get under my skin. And the answer to your question is indeed no, but I've been involved in developing and applying the non-free content policy for some time now, unlike you and Raul who have a vested interest in these images and in this article. Look, I understand that the NFCC are arcane but their goal is to limit the use of non-free content to what is truly necessary as per the foundation's licensing resolution, and what we have here is the classic argument of freedom vs completeness. These are borderline cases and the argument is about where this line is to be drawn -- more for freedom or more for decoration that serves a vague encyclopedic purpose? Now how about answering my question, please. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't have any more vested interest in that image than you do in enforcing your version of NFCC#8, seemingly against all reasonable notions of utility. Your irrational arguments regarding my translation/s below and your inflexible inability to account, or care for that matter, for the de facto censorship brought by your interpretation of Israeli govt. copyright laws, proves to me you should not be doing image-related work. Now how about answering my question, please (below) ? El_C 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry, but there are a number of questions being asked back and forth. Which one are you referring to here (or have already made an attempt at addressing it)? howcheng {chat} 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm out. El_C 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Howcheng, I can't possibly believe that, because in many, many cases we desperately need a non-free image, but there are dozens, (or thousands, or even millions) that are equally usable. The article on Worf clearly needs an image of Worf - his appearance is striking, and important to the character. Words can't explain - and yet, there's no specific image of Worf that's needed. There are maybe 200-250 44 minute episodes and 4 movies in which the character appears - there are probably between 100 000 and 1 000 000 non-free images of Worf - probably at least 1000 screen shots that would serve excellently - and it doesn't matter which we use. But we need one of them. In cases where several copyrighted images exist and one is needed, but it doesn't matter which one, we should chose the one(s) which best meet the other criteria (for example, one distributed freely with "not-for commercial" or "only without modification" over one that's sold for profit) but the idea that the existence of other unfree images hampers the use of an unfree image is bizarre. WilyD 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a subtle difference here -- Worf needs an image for the reader to understand his appearance, and yes, we can pick any number of still frames from the series, all of which could do the same job because they serve the same encyclopedic purpose -- without an image of him, the reader's comprehension of Worf is compromised. This image is of paratroopers walking around. It's simply not necessary for understanding the text. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see the difference here - images of soldiers in combat may not increase your understanding, but they certainly increase my understanding in a way the words cannot. I was merely responding to your claim that other images of soldiers in combat could do an equal job, so this fails NFCC#8 because it's clear that interpretation of NFCC#8 is flawed (or incomplete). As far as I can see, this is an unfree image that makes the text fair more enlightening, doesn't impinge in any meaningful way on the copyright holder's value that cannot be replaced by a free image. That it can be replaced by unfree images is only relevant if the other unfree images are somehow "better" - under a "freer license" or such. If an image enhances the article for "some" but not "all" readers, what then? Is there a magic cutoff percentage? I don't know this. WilyD 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I understand what you're saying, but it's the same question I posed above with regards to Image:Yom Kippur War 1.jpg. There is no point in the article that I as a reader would think, "A picture of paratroopers walking around would really help me understand." For non-free images, the article text should create a need for an image. That the image by itself, which is only tangentially related to the text (the word "paratrooper" only appears once in the article and in a different context, and "ambush" only appears in the image caption) happens to increase your understanding, is immaterial. Does that make more sense? howcheng {chat} 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, I deliberately focused on this image rather than the one above because it includes combat, which makes it more relevant and useful. The article talks about combat a whole lot more - how specific do we need to be? In my Worf example, it probably doesn't talk about how he stands around on the bridge of the Enterprise a whole lot - the need is more generally, but equally as impossible with free images. There's a real need for images of combat, which cannot be done with free images (as far as I can see). Is this request "too general"? I would say that the more "general" the need, the more it enhances the reader's understanding. This may not be universal. WilyD 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
              • If you go back read through my arguments, I've always talked in terms of specificity -- why this specific image and not a different one is needed. Because our use of non-free content is supposed to be minimal, the more specific the need, the better justification we have. For a more frivolous example, see Image talk:Jp01.jpg. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Hmm, I'm not completely sure about this. This is why I look at articles like Batman as needing unfree images, but "somewhat" non-specific ones as an analogous case. Images of combat definitely do enhance the reader's understanding of the war by an invaluable amount. As far as we can tell, no free images exist of this - and definitely no new ones can be created. If we burnt all the other combat images then we could make a very compelling case for this image - as of right now, the real thrust of the delete argument seems to be Could be replaced by an equally unfree image without serious damage to the article - but this (to me) seems spurious - the same is true of almost any fictional character, as I earlier opined. The image substantially enhances my understanding of the war, and can't be replaced by a free image. That it fits a "class of images" that suit the bill still seems unconvincing as a general principle ...

• Strong, speedy keep - This is a public document and no one owns it. Translation from Hebrew to English is by the uploading WP editor. Editor proposing deletion is acting in a disruptive manner. Badagnani 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "public document"? What translation are you talking about? This is a photograph showing paratroopers landing. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

it looks like he copy and pasted the same reply to several deletion requests Bleh999 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It appears my previous vote was deleted by someone—I'll assume good faith—so here it is again. It pays to assume good faith, as it turns out someone just screwed up this section while editing, apparently accidentally. The image does not meet WP:NFCC#8. This copyrighted image does not add anything to the text, as supported by the fact that the image itself is not even referenced in the text. People expect soldiers in combat to be in uniform, wearing a helmet, and carrying weapons. That is all this image shows. The image does not demonstrate any special or noteworthy technologies used at the time, and it does not show any singularly unique event within the war itself or it would surely be referenced in the article itself. SqlPac 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought this was what fair use was for. D. Recorder 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image was deleted. Failed WP:NFCC 8. The image did not add significantly to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 11:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 Analyses Summery.jpg

Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 Analyses Summery.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by El C (notify | contribs).

• There is already a copyrighted image of comparable value available at Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 intelligence report according to Bavel.jpg. This second copyrighted image of the same exact type of material, and is therefore redundant and unnecessary. It adds no value beyond the already cited related image. Because of this the image is not critical and fails WP:NFCC#8. Both of these two images are most definitely not needed in the same article either (Yom Kippur War). — SqlPac 05:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, this might be public domain by virtue of being a public government document, although I don't know what Israeli law is with regards to that type of situation. Worth investigating, though. howcheng {chat} 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Fair use is fine, for both images. They are highly instructive and revealing and not "the exact type of material," whatever that means. I question the nominator's judgment, outright. El_C 06:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. You're free to question the nominator's judgment as much as you like. Your insults do not change the fact that this is simply scanned text. My judgment tells me there is nothing instructive nor revealing in the choice of paper used to print these documents on, nor in the choice of inks used. My judgment tells me that these documents are simply scanned graphic images of text. If you find the content of these documents to be "highly instructive" and "revealing", my judgment tells me you should include the text of the documents in the body of the article, and not slapped on as graphical afterthoughts. SqlPac 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It is not public domain, fairuse per the IDF copyrights policy. El_C 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    Really? I know there are many governments that say the text of governmental edicts and reports are public domain. If that's the case in Israel, then an image of public domain text is by nature public domain as well, IDF stated policy notwithstanding.

    • This is starting to look like bad faith nomination on the part of the two nominators above. El_C 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I hate to throw AGF at a fellow admin, but I know Abu badali is a tireless worker whose goal is to make sure that non-free images on Wikipedia are compliant with policies. howcheng {chat} 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • As soon as I hear "AGF" invoked as an abberviation, I always become suspicious, or is that also a lack of AGF on my part? El_C 07:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • When you say it's "starting to look like a bad faith nomination", that's by definition not assuming good faith. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Why are you bothering responding to innuendo? El_C 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an image of text, which is rather pointless. It's like having a photo of a newspaper article in a Wikipedia article. The text should be used a source for the article -- having an image of the text does nobody any good, especially when it's so small as to be unreadable. Yes, I know this image is large, but if it's truly non-free, then the size needs to be reduced so that it cannot be used to create illicit copies. howcheng {chat} 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• This echo chamber is tiresome. Yes, the images are inter-related, but that does not make each any less critical, especially considering that these documents have been declassified recently and that they expose a side of the war that has been hidden for decades. To simply utter "no value beyond the already cited related image" without any substantiating this claim, specifically, reflects poorly on this nominator and echoing supporters. As for claims of size and ilicit copies, that's just too ridiciolous to dignify with a response, sorry. But, wow, just wow. El_C 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't contribute to the article in a way that text alone could not (NFCC#8) since it's just text anyway. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You can't ignore what I'm saying above and talk pass me as if I don't exist, it dosen't work that way. El_C 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You also cannot ignore what we are saying either. NFCC #8 requires that the image increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. Since this is an image of words, by definition it cannot accomplish this goal. You want to keep the image? Then you need to justify its inclusion. Please explain to me exactly how this image of Hebrew text (on the English Wikipedia) is supposed to enhance my comprehension of the article. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a recently declassified, key document. Would you please stop saying "NFCC #8," already? El_C 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • So why isn't the document being used as a source for the article? Having an image of text which most readers of en-WP can't even read serves no purpose whatsoever. Complete this sentence: "Readers need to see this image of a recently declassified key document because..." howcheng {chat} 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Because they can see it exists. Because the translated text is historically significant. El_C 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me understand this correctly: I provide the only English translation of this key document, not only on the internet, but possibly anywhere, and now it's facing deletion due to vague lawyering, and possibly a campaign to demoralize Raul. It looks bad. El_C 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand: This document and its translation belong on Wikisource, not here (if Israeli government documents are not PD, then disregard that statement). Then you use it to cite statements in the article -- I assume you are familiar with WP:CITE, yes? howcheng {chat} 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, Israeli government documents are not public domain. El_C 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, please. El_C 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The irony is, and no one is going to bother responding but I'll state the obvious anyway, is that I should not have bothered translating this document. As much insight as it may give the English reader into the pre-War decisionmaking is trumped by poorly-formulated image wordlawyering. Coem to think of it, I should not have bothered translating the second document, either, since it is entirely arbitrary that this one is proposed for deletion while it is not. This is a farce. El_C 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Both of these documents are incredibly important and your effort is invaluable, but there is a difference between the document itself and an image of the document. The document itself is to be used as a source for the article. You don't need the image to prove that the document exists; I'm sure there are other books and whatnot that use it as a reference as well. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's totally arbitrary why one is proposed for deletion while the other is not. The Hebrew Wikipedia fairuses the images in five and three different articles, respectively, because of their "historical significance". Once you delete this image, the translation will be gone, and our readers' access to this unique insight into the war, available in English nowhere else, will be gone with it. All to prove some fairuse point (that we all get)? I've had it with this nonesense. Not worth it. El_C 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a POINTy discussion. As I said above, it's a fundamental question of which is more important: the freedom of the content, or its completeness? I and others who have had hands in developing the non-free content policy are more willing to sacrifice completeness for greater freedom whereas you seem to be in the other camp. As to why one is proposed for deletion but the other isn't, you'll have to ask SqlPac, but if the arbitrariness of it bothers you so much, I'll go and nominate the other one right now. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to nominate the other. Unfortunately I had to turn in before I could complete the task last night. Happy to help. SqlPac 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The gratification of driving off the project could prove more short-lived than you envision, User:Howcheng. El_C 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I derive no such gratification, sir. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. El_C 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, speedy keep - This is a public document and no one owns it. Translation from Hebrew to English is by the uploading WP editor. Editor proposing deletion is acting in a disruptive manner. Badagnani 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • User:El C insists that documents produced by the Israeli government are NOT in the public domain. howcheng {chat} 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, because it is POV. The caption says "Known as the greatest intelligence failure in the history of the Israeli Intelligence Community." By whom? Who says it wasn't deliberate subterfuge? Israel had its sources within Mossad, Ashraf Marwan, at the very highest level, so it obviously was never going to show its hand until the crunch. This document is being used to bolster a POV that Israel misinterpreted the worsening situation, when in fact they were aware of it and actually got several hours warning of the attack. 222.153.228.12 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That doesn't really seem like much of a reason to delete the image file, but it could be cause to edit the caption or the description on the image page. howcheng {chat} 22:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is scanned text. If the text is historically significant then include the text in the article. SqlPac 03:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought this was what fair use was for. Commendable translation by El C, when I first saw these I was really impressed. D. Recorder 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete- it's a picture of TEXT. If it's important, just put it in the article. Fair use there would be as valid as fair use of this image. Borisblue 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Fair use is not compatible with the GFDL, so cannot be used as Wikipedia source text. In this case I think it would be the most appropriate to delete the scans and use them as references instead. Surely they can legally be obtained somewhere (or the scans would probably have been speedily deleted by now), and are therefore valid sources to cite in the article. The actual scans serve little purpose in themselves. --Pekaje 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A (clearly-marked) quotation is no more a violation of GFDL than an inline image is. Borisblue 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Image was deleted. Copyrighted image that fails WP:NFCC#8 -Nv8200p talk 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 intelligence report according to Bavel.jpg

Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 intelligence report according to Bavel.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by El C (notify | contribs).

• This is an image of text. It should be used as a reference to the article, but it is not necessary for the image itself to be included. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize you are offended by me pointing out your misconduct, but this is really beneath you. El_C 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not taken any offense. This is me behaving in a way consistent with my beliefs. My argument for deletion of this image is exactly the same as above. You were correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of nominating one image of text but not the other. I am simply rectifying that. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't believe you. In both cases, you wish to delete translations that took me some time to complete due to a technicality, which reflects extremely poorly on you. El_C 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Dude, I don't even know you. As admins and editors, we've never operated in the same circles, so I don't believe we've ever interacted up until this point. In no way am I denigrating your work. You may be taking this personally but for me, this is about policy. Take some time and look through the previous IFD logs or WT:NONFREE or WP:MCQ and you'll find my position to be consistently against the unnecessary use of non-free images. howcheng {chat} 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Image-editors keep inventing new xenophopic, US-biased fairuse criteria and I'm supposed to pretend it all makes sense? El_C 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • "Xenophobic"?! This has nothing to do with the documents being from Israel or any other country. howcheng {chat} 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NFCC #8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can't ignore what I'm saying above and talk pass me as if I don't exist, it dosen't work that way. El_C 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is only a transcript of an interview with a informant rather than an actual plan of attack, this is not a primary source anyway, the English translation can easily be incorporated into the article. Bleh999 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Interviews? Are we looking at the same thing? Please read closely. These are intelligent report submitted to the Israeli cabinet and high command a day/hours before the war broke. It is this superficial approach on the part of image-editors that I take strong exception to. El_C 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I read this in the description where the Egyptian and Syrian plan of attack was depicted according to Dr. Ashraf_Marwan who was later thought to have been a double agent that sounds more like it was based on an interview, interestingly 'ashraf marwan' isn't even mentioned in the article it's being used in, apart from the caption. The image does not convey much information as it is currently being used. Bleh999 00:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, speedy keep - This is a public document and no one owns it. Translation from Hebrew to English is by the uploading WP editor. Editor proposing deletion is acting in a disruptive manner. Badagnani 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • User:El C insists that works of the Israeli government such as this are NOT in the public domain. howcheng {chat} 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep primary source, is encyclopedic, might be impossible to prove the existence of without having a picture of it. -N 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, the image was scanned from a book, so proof of it exists elsewhere. And Wikipedia is not a place to host primary sources. Also see WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #11 (yes, that example is about newspaper articles, but it's the same principle here). howcheng {chat} 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition the IDF doesn't own the copyright to the translation, it can be freely used, and is more useful on the English wikipedia. Bleh999 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish! Translations are considered derivatives under copyright law. Publishing a translation of a copyrighted work is a violation of the original author's copyright. It sucks, but it's true. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. And BTW User:El C, when I see not one, but two, copyrighted images of essentially the same type of material—neither of which is even referenced in the article itself—I have to ask are they really necessary? And no, they are not. The fact of the matter is that just about everyone knows "what a document looks like", so demonstrating "what a document looks like" is obviously not the point. The text was translated by you (and not referenced in the body of the article), so you are essentially demonstrating what scanned text looks like. Unfortunately this article does not appear to be about "Scanned Text". If this information is *that* important, put it into the body of the article. Please feel free to return the "good faith", and explain why two images of scanned text are necessary in an article in which those images and their content are not even referenced, it would be appreciated. SqlPac 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought this was what fair use was for. Commendable translation by El C, when I first saw these I was really impressed. D. Recorder 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Image was deleted. Copyrighted image that fails [[WP:NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was Not deleted no consensus, not clearly speedyable GDonato (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom.jpg

Image:Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Chesspieceface (notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#2 (competes with the copyright holder, which also uses this image to illustrate an article about this murder) and WP:NFCC#8 (does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article in a way words cannot). Videmus Omnia 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. I'm not certain that Turner Broadcasting would be the copyright holder for an image created before the subjects became famous (before they were murdered), so it might be fair use at the source, as well. However, it clearly fails #8, as do many FU images on WP, so delete.--Chaser - T 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep #8 is the strongest case for it. Non-replacable image of deceased persons, intrinsic to understanding the article. #2 argument seems very weak in this case as well. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - how is it intrinsic to understanding the article? Videmus Omnia 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article discusses the controversy over the non-coverage by the media due to the races of all involved. The picture illustrates this. Chesspieceface 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment ----I support the removal of the pictures because it is politically incorrect to have them posted. Yes, you are correct, this is not a copyright problem because of fair use laws (note that many other web sites and television broadcasts have used the same pictures when talking/writing about this case). The reason why they should be take down is because they give people the idea that black people are out to harm white people. This is politically incorrect. We need to be sensitive to the feelings of everyone, and I am honestly offended. We do not need to perpetuate genetically derived shortcuts (ie. stereotypes). We need to get beyond them. We don't want to have this be used as a front against multi-culturalism and the many strengths of diversity. Again, because of the feeling of many people who have heard of this case, we need to address it in a sensitive way.
  • Hey, wait, what's that smell? Is somebody baking satire? I love satire! My favorite! (If I'm wrong, that's not a valid deletion reason.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - is instrinsic to the understanding of the article as any image would be. This is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is simply saying that images add greatly to the understanding of an article. If we allow any fair use at all, it's with the understanding that some images under fair use add instrinsically to it. The Evil Spartan 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but once again, it "adds greatly to understanding" how? Videmus Omnia 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe I explained myself. In the same way that any image adds to an article - images inherently help to the understanding of an article (the entire concept of fair-use is based on this). Seriously, if we're going to allow any fair-use at all, we can't go dissecting non-replaceable fair-use images and say that each of them doesn't really add greatly to an article; this type of nothing buttery could be used for any fair-use image whatsoever. This is clearly non-replaceable. The Evil Spartan 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If decades have passed an event then your claim would be stronger, I don't think you can claim a personal photograph of a recently deceased individual is 'non-replaceable' it could be that someone has a photo of the victims in their family portrait and is willing to release it under a better licenseBleh999 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep *Delete The actual copyright holder is the probably family of the victims or their heirs or maybe obtained from a friend of the victims, if they released it to the media then it is being used for identification of the subjects who are dead, its not really competing with the copyright holder and it is not replaceable but I agree it doesn't add anything to the article that is not conveyed in text.Bleh999 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But after consideration, the article about the murders doesn't need this picture, it doesn't convey anything that isn't done already in the text. Maybe it would be different if this was a biography of the individual victims (assuming they were noteworthy) Bleh999 00:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the image. It is important to understanding the article and it adds a certain amount of texture to it. We can see the people who are involved in this case. It can be used under fair use as the article is about the people being displayed in the picture. [signed alphadogg8]

• Keep. These images are crucial to illustrate the controversy behind the case. Don't you politically correct busybodies have anything better to do than try to delete these images weekly? Chesspieceface 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please be civil. Personal attacks are not helpful here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm being perfectly civil. It was an (accurate) observation, not a personal attack Chesspieceface 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a photograph of the subject of an article is almost always believed to satisfy NFCC #8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While NFCC #8 is still a problem, I think #2 is more serious. Right now the declared copyright holder is Turner Broadcasting (according to the image description page) and they are using it in a basically identical fashion to ours - to provide a place for people to learn about this crime. Our usage of their image competes with their ability to attract viewers to their website. If another copyright holder can be demonstrated we could reconsider this, but right now the image is in violation. Videmus Omnia 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just find it extremely unlikely that a Turner reporter had the remarkable foresight to photograph the couple before they became notable. I've seen many times that a news source will claim copyright on an image they don't own the copyright to. (Remember the furor about NBC putting copyright logos on the photos that the WV school shooter sent in? NBC didn't hold the copyright, the shooter did.) There's really no legal penalty for inaccurately claiming copyright on something like this -- they can just issue a correction if it becomes an issue. It's pretty obvious that the family provided the photo to TBN and said "Yeah, sure, you can use this". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Adendum: TBN isn't claiming copyright on the image, just the text. I've found the image used on a dozen news sites. None of them credit TBN or any other copyright-holder. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • News sources use images under fair use as well, it doesn't mean they always own an image they use Bleh999 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Or it may be that Turner purchased rights to the image, at this point there's no way to tell - in which case we should err on the side of caution, especially considering the doubtful use under WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • This is the most clear cut case of #8 there could be. The first thing most people look for in a murder story is photographs of the victims and (alleged) perpetrators. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Quadell, on the copyright issue - Turner's copyright terms for the website can be found here. This situation would seem to be covered by paragraph 6.D. on that page - Court TV may from time to time contract with third parties to provide content that is published on Court TV Online. Court TV reserves the right to publish and maintain copyright on any such material except where otherwise individually noted. Videmus Omnia 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And yet you can also find a dozen other news outlets with similar disclaimers that publish the image. They can't all hold the copyright. Such claims just aren't valid. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- does not violate #2, since this image is already widely available in a similar form, and including the image on this page does not significantly affect the availability (or marketability) of the image. In addition, the image is at web resolution and is used for informative and education purposes; every meaningful action has been taken to ensure that it does not compete with the copyright holder's claim, whoever they may be. In addition, it absolutely adds to the education merit of the article -- the only thing that separates this murder from any other, besides the brutality, and frankly makes it the only reason it is included in the encyclopedia is because of the races of the victims involved. A picture of the victims is critical to any meaningful understanding of the racial elements involved in this case -- if you actually read the article, you will notice that we only mention race once; leaving the images of the victims and suspects to give the reader a fuller understanding. They are irreplaceable in the context of any meaningful discussion of this case. --Haemo 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is a picture necessary for the reader to understand the victims were white? A simple statement of that fact would seem to get the point across equally well. Videmus Omnia 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Saying "So and so is white" is a completely different matter from showing the user that they are white. It's the difference between saying something, and explaining it to the viewer. It's very, very difficult for a reader to understand what the hullaballoo is about them being white, and the suspects black with seeing the pictures that were released into the media. In order to explain the reason people were upset because "they were white" goes well beyond simply explaining their race — a picture is worth a thousand words, and in this case, they're words which simply cannot be verifiably said without an image. --Haemo 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Haemo, do you have a reliable source for the assertion that this picture fanned the controversy? If that could be put in the article, the picture would be illustrating commentary about itself, which would solve all our problems, I believe. Videmus Omnia 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The picture is already illustrating commentary; the fact that these people are clean-cut, all-American white youth was part of the underlying narrative here. I mean, look at the original emails that circulated about the story, here. There's a reason the smiling white, clean-cut white kids are juxtaposed against brooding mugshots in the narrative. Stories like this continually refer to them as "clean-cut" and "beautiful, young, couple". Invariably, where you find this description, it is designed to inflame -- we, instead, illustrate it with a picture, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. It's not some kind of coincidence that in the discussion of the "hate crime" question the pictures of the victims and suspects are front and center. --Haemo 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Consider an analogous case -- Rodney King -- imagine trying to talk about the Rodney King beating without a picture; instead, saying only "he was black". You just can't do it in any meaningful way. Sometimes, a picture is worth more than even a thousand words. --Haemo 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I understand what you're saying, but can you provide any source that the picture caused controversy? Like I said, if you can source it, it's a compelling justification, but without a source the argument is original research. No disrespect intended to the victims, but it doesn't seem like their picture would inspire outrage above and beyond that of any other murder victims - they look like any random ordinary couple you would see on the street. Videmus Omnia 13:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (deindent) That's the whole point! They look like a clean-cut, all-American couple - as opposed to, say, strung out white meth addicts, or something. Explaining the difference here, and why stories describe them as "beautiful" or "clean-cut" is something that would be extremely difficult to do without a picture -- which is why it's vital to include the image. In addition, the image was released to the press by police department, according to some news reports online -- which means the copyright varies. In this case, it's Turner Broadcasting. If you found it on another page, it's probably the users. --Haemo 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's another story I just found which specifically mentions the appearance of the victims in the context of inflaming passions over the story: here --Haemo 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a blog that just says they were "attractive"; that can be described by words, I think. The opinion piece you cited describes the controversy without using copyrighted pictures, we should be able to do the same. Videmus Omnia 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It's actually not a blog, it's a editorially controlled news source written by bloggers -- and do you really want us to start talking about how "attractive" the "young white couple" was in the article and how the blacks suspects appeared to be "thugs"? I mean, really -- because that's what removing these pictures is going to be require the article to do. --Haemo 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The article really can't use those terms anyway, due to WP:NPOV - unless the opinions are cited to reliable sources. Videmus Omnia 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
            • That's kind of the point here -- no one wants to use those terms, because where they're drawn from is often opinion-based news-sources. Citing them is a problem -- however, to understand the controversy, we need to explain who the victims, and suspects are. A picture allows us to show the reader who these people are without editorializing -- simply saying "they were white" ignores the rest of this; the pictures tread the fine line between forcing us to duplicate editorial judgments in order to explain the controversy, or making it incoherent -- which is why I believe they are critically important to the article in question. --Haemo 00:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I disagree that it can't be expressed in words - but I don't think we're going to convince each other. Looks like we've got all of our points out there for the closing admin to consider in the decision. Videmus Omnia 00:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If a fair/free use cannot be established than it is a delete. By stating that it contributes to the article, regarding the controversy. I ask what controversy? Sorry to say, a horrific crime was committed. Living in Philadelphia, again sorry to say, this happens on a daily bases! The only place I have heard that this situation is stated as a debate is on Wikipedia and two blog sites. When a few individuals start stamping their feet and shaking their fists and clamor controversy, this in itself does not make it a controversy. What question boils down to; “…is the picture used with permission or not”. If not delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is well-cited in the article; it far extends beyond the brutality of the crime, and centers directly on the races of those involved. The picture is fair use -- there cannot be a free alternative produced because they are dead, and fair use does not require the permission of the copyright holders. --Haemo 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what your are saying, it doesn't add anything to the article, more importantly, the mugshots of the suspects should be deleted unless the police department releases them into public domain (some departments do), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The mugshots are actually a weaker case of fair use because the subjects are still living and the possibility of free use images is possible. I tried to nominate it for deletion, not sure if it has been erased. Bleh999 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I completely understand the doubts about NFCC#2. Though I personally believe that this image passes that criterion, I can certainly see how other people would see it differently. But NFCC #8? Are people seriously suggesting that a non-free photograph of the deceased persons, in an article about the deceased persons, is not important enough to include? I would think that one of the most obvious examples of an image passing NFCC#8 would be a photograph of a person in an article that is specifically about that person. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

the only problem is that wikipedia is not a news source but an encyclopedia, that murder is not even notable news nationwide in the US let alone worldwide, I don't see the point in publishing photos of murder victims unless they are notable Bleh999 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

These people are highly notable -- the story has attracted both local, and national news coverage -- mostly for the fact that it, originally, didn't attract that notice, and people started crying about racial bias. --Haemo 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If the story isn't notable, it should be nominated for deletion as non-notable at WP:AFD. If the story itself is notable, then an image that illustrates the story can be used if it contributes significantly to the article in ways words alone can not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunate delete. Currently, I think this really only fails NFCC #10 because we don't know who the copyright holder is. Saying that it's "probably" the victim's family is not good enough. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarify my position: Having given this more thought, I think this fails NFCC #8 too. pd_THOR is right: We don't need to see a picture of them to understand they're white. It also unintentionally introduces some racial bias -- contrast the smiling middle-class white people photo with the unkempt black people mugshots (although that's really an editorial decision that I like to avoid here at IFD). howcheng {chat} 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:NFCC#8. I understand that the arguments for keeping the image are either (1) because it's shows the reader what the dead folks looked like or (2) showing you that they were white because there is a racial angle to the article. One, seeing what they looked like does not significantly contribute to the article, which is about their murder and everything surrounding it—not what they looked like. Having the image is nice, but not necessary. Secondly, having described them as being white or Caucasian is sufficient to explain this fact w/o requiring a picture for illustration. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's way more to understanding a crime than the races of the victims and perpetrators. There is what sort of persons where involved which can only be well-described with a photograph. The race is not what is portrayed by the photographs. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - just regarding claims that it fails NFCC #10, this site here claims the copyright to be the Associated Press. Given that the other page gives no information, I've updated the sourcing to reflect this, so this shouldn't be a problem. --Haemo 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the caption states that it's a family photo (which family? dunno), which makes sense because why would the AP be taking pictures of people before they became famous. Anyway, if it were an AP photo, then we'd be running afoul of NFCC #2. howcheng {chat} 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Look at the copyright information below the picture -- and, as I explained above, I believe that #2 is okay too. --Haemo 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 debate was

[edit] Image:Manufacturing_dissent.PNG

Image:Manufacturing_dissent.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ocatecir (notify | contribs).

• Does not add anything to article that is not already conveyed in text Bleh999 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it in fact does. The whole point of the {{Non-free poster}} tag is that these posters are indicative of the cover of these articles. The Evil Spartan 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Evil Spartan. This is the policy to the letter. — Ocatecir^T 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, satisfies NFCC #8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Image kept but tagged as missing fair use rationale. -Nv8200p talk 04:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

[edit] Image:Microsoftpoint.gif

Image:Microsoftpoint.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by JAF1970 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image. Per WP:FURG, provided fair use rationale is insufficient for current usage (described at Image talk:Microsoftpoint.gif#Informal rules of use), which itself is not consistent with style guidelines on trademarks and currency. In addition, the usage of images inline with text limits accessibility. Image was discussed in more detail at Talk:Microsoft Points#Currency symbol. — Dancter 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non free. furthermore, it's usage appears to be entirely non-fair use. Also, said usage can be confusing as someone not familiar with the symbol would have no blue link to help them understand. The size and placement of the symbol further complicate matters by making it easily possible for users to believe that the symbol has some meaning inside wikipedia. Could reasonably be kept under fair use strictly when being used on the Microsoft Points page to denote the trademark. i kan reed 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I completely disagree with the removal of this image. It's and accepted shorthand, and those of us in the gaming industry don't need to be typing and reading Microsoft Points all the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.153.4.51 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, since inline images should use the title attribute (which doesn't work as well as it should for alternative browsing), it actually requires more keystrokes, and inflates the article size. Dancter 14:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from all articles except Microsoft Points where it seems to fulfill the Fair Use rationale./Lokal_Profil 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept but removed from all articles except Microsoft Points. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

[edit] Image:Bojacksonhitandrun.jpg

Image:Bojacksonhitandrun.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ocatecir (notify | contribs).

• unnecessary fair use image, article about Bo Jackson doesn't even mention video games produced about him Bleh999 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  Keep Video game section was removed by an anonymous IP without any explanation. The image is necessary to illustrate the games which are a large part of the Bo Jackson legacy. I don't appreciate this Wikistalking and will be keeping an eye on you to make sure you don't engage in any further harassment. — Ocatecir^T 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  What wikistalking? I don't see nominating images for deletion listed under WP:HAR please clarify your statement in regards to established wikipedia policies or retract your statement. Bleh999 21:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Concern seems to be addressed. WilyD 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept but image is now slated for deletion under no rationale/no license/no source grounds. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.