Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 7

< July 6	July 8 >

July 7

File:PlacardSt.CatherineAltar.jpeg

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

The result of the discussion was: Tag as di-no permission. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a video screenshot, dubious own work claim FASTILY 07:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested permission to use this screen shot from a video made in Egypt by Egypt.Maximus, and am waiting confirmation. Here is a copy the message requesting use of this screen shot:Floraalbert (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC) On Oct. 31, 2010 Egypt Max published an article on the internet titled Saint Catherine Catholic Church Alexandria. I would like permission to capture a frame and use it in a wikipedia articie I am writing about my great uncle Father Vito Cav. Di Maio O.F.M. The frame is of a placard having my uncle Vito's name on it. It is at frame time 2:03 of your article. Thank you, Respectfully Albert Flora. Choose Files Choose Files[reply]

@Floraalbert: I appreciate you asking for permission to use the material here on Wikipedia. The problem is that having permission to use on Wikipedia isn't sufficient. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the statement by Floraalbert indicating this image is not their own work but comes from someone else (who holds copyright), and that the image is likely replaceable with free licensed material, this should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Science Jajce 89.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image previously deleted on Commons (see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokret Jajce 89.jpg) reuploaded to en.wiki to avoid scrutiny. Uploader is now globally banned for this behaviour (uploading and reuploading copyvios across projects). Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tampadowntown cropped.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cropped version of c:File:Tampadowntown.jpg. XXN, 19:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 July 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. This is as contentious as FFD gets so I'll try to be as clear as possible: I believe there is (admittedly not unanimous) consensus that this image does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The majority opinion can be summarized thusly: "this image does not significantly improve the reader's understanding of the subject of the article, which is a shooting". The fact that the article's subject is a shooting, not a biography (although it of course includes some biographical details of the shooter) is also an argument that weighs heavily against WP:NFCI#10.

I'd like to note, for anybody considering contesting this deletion further (at DRV or elsewhere) that while this discussion obviously isn't miles away from "no consensus", even if the FFD's closure was "overturned to no consensus" the end result would be the same: whether there is "consensus that this file does not meet NFCC" or "no consensus that this file meets NFCC", both cases would result in the file not being allowed to remain on Wikipedia under our fair-use policies. Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 21:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This is a procedural relist from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23. Concerns had been raised in a previous FFD about whether this image satisfies the non-free content criteria (NFCC). The subsequent determination at DRV was that this file should be relisted for further discussion. Based on the content of the DRV discussion, I suggest here that participants in this discussion make their appeals to the image's meeting or failing NFCC as explicit as possible. Conversely, I suggest that the closer consider carefully any implicit arguments which still touch on NFCC issues. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should never have been relisted. "Overturn to non-consensus", as I carefully laid out in the DRV, is the same as an endorsement of the close, as no consensus of a valid rationale means the image had to be deleted from the one article it was in. To the image itself, this is a blatant and complete failure of WP:NFCC policy and can not sustain on the article 2017 Congressional baseball shooting. (1) The rationale is a failure. It claims the purpose of use is for his biographical article...which doesn't exist (and won't; he isn't notable). (2) We do not use non-free images of dead people for depiction purposes alone when outside of that persons biographical article. (3) There is no sourced (or even unsourced; not that that would help) commentary in the article regarding the image. The image was taken in 2013, 4 years separated from the event of which the article is about. The image has nothing to do with this article except to depict him which, again, is wholly insufficient rationale to include a non-free image of him. This is a failure of WP:NFCC #8, as there is nothing about this image that is significant to the article. The article is understood precisely just as well with or without the image. (4) The Foundation is crystal clear about this at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. To wit, "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant event"; the image here is most emphatically NOT about this historic event; the image has nothing to do with the event except that it happens to show the perpetrator. (5) His visual appearance at an event four years earlier has nothing to do with the crime he perpetrated this year. There is no news sources apparently available that make his visual appearance of interest to the crime. It's meaningless. (6) As NFCC policy lays out, the burden of proving a valid rationale can be presented lies with those wishing to retain non-free content. There has never been consensus that such a rationale could be written, which means it fails WP:NFCC on that point as well. In summary; there is absolutely nothing in any reasoning presented either at the prior FfD or the DRV to suggest in any shape or form that this image is valid under our NFCC policy. This image has nothing to do with this historic event. We most emphatically DO NOT upload non-free images just for illustration purposes in cases such as this. Delete with prejudice. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as uploader. This image meets WP:NFCC:

1. No free equivalent: The man is dead, new free photographs aren't possible. The previous discussion didn't identify any acceptable alternatives (there's a mugshot, but it's also unfree, and non-neutral). Text is not an equivalent because a person's appearance can't be adequately summarized in text (of practical length); choosing what to include in a description and what not is original research.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities: It's from a press photograph, but a tight crop at low resolution, so it doesn't hinder the photographer in re-licensing the whole photo that also includes the protest sign the man holds.

3. to 7. These criteria have not been an issue in previous discussions, as far as I know.

8. Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The perpetrator is at the core of the article 2017 Congressional baseball shooting because this is a crime of great political significance (it was even Wikipedia front page news) committed by a single person for unclear reasons. Humans do tend and want to assess people visually; a photograph gives us an immediate understanding of certain socially and perhaps politically relevant aspects of the perpetrator (such as age, gender, ethnicity, social class) that are not immediately, and not with all nuances, conveyed by text. It is this human ability and desire to place a person in a social context based on their appearance that aids readers' understanding of the topic and is prevented if the image is omitted. It is therefore accepted practice in biographical writing of any sort to include an image where possible, both in news media and in encyclopedias. A biographical text without an image is fundamentally incomplete and a disservice to readers. That the biographical text is, here, part of a broader article rather than a dedicated article is an artifact of our notability practices and has no bearing on the NFCC aspects of the case.

9. and 10. These criteria have also not been an issue in previous discussions, as far as I know.

The NFCC, as the applicable community-adopted policy, therefore allows the fair use of this image. Arguments based on other practices, declarations, resolutions, discussions, etc. are not relevant. Sandstein 06:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you suggest, we should be allowed to use non-free images without historical relevance (even for dead people), then there is no limit in any respect to having non-free images on articles wherever we would like to use them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are limits: those in the NFCC. "Historical relevance" is not a phrase used in that policy, however, so whatever it may mean, it's not an issue in this discussion. Sandstein 17:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you, again, to read Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. That lays out the historical aspect requirement here. That is a dictum by the Foundation. As it says, "it may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project." Now, if you wish to ignore that policy (just a thought experiment here, as you can't) pray tell...what limits do you suppose are in place? Your solution would be to allow wherever we like if it depicts a person we mention. Am I wrong? If I am, please tell me what limits you think there should be. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this resolution forbids the use of the image discussed here. Indeed, the resolution encourages it: it says that the use of NFCC policies "should be to illustrate historically significant events", which is exactly what we're doing here: we're illustrating the article about this shooting, which is a historically significant event, with an image of the perpetrator of the shooting. In any case, the resolution is not directly applicable policy. It sets out a framework for communities to develop policies such as our NFCC; and if the NFCC are too permissive in light of the resolution, which I don't think they are, then it would be the NFCC which would need to be amended. Sandstein 08:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to the existing limits, they are the ones set out in the NFCC. Of course we wouldn't use a fair use image whenever a person is merely mentioned, because in most cases an image of a random person wouldn't help readers understand the article better. But here the person of perpetrator is at the very core of the article and part of a significant historical event, and therefore our readers expect to see an image of him, which they wouldn't for any other person mentioned (e.g., the police officers involved). Sandstein 08:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe that we can use a four year old commercially owned non-free image that has NOTHING to do with this current event, to illustrate an article about this current event, and honestly believe this somehow satisfies WP:NFCC policy and principle, we have nothing further to discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I wrote in the DRV discussion, I don't think seeing the picture of Hodgkinson in this case improves the reader's understanding of the article content to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. If there was something particularly notable about his appearance that was related to this shooting that was covered in reliable sources, then perhaps using an image would be OK. There is, however, nothing in 2017 Congressional baseball shooting#Perpetrator which discusses such things. None of the Hodgkinson's actions or beliefs seem to be in any way related to his physical appearance, so I don't see how WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER is met. Per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, the image itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary, and it's not essential to identifying an object, style or behavior being discussed in the article. Any information that can be obtained about his appearance from this particular photo (e.g., his race, hair color, facial hair, the color of his shirt, he's wearing sunglasses, etc.) can be decribed more than adequately using text per WP:NFCC#1 if necessary. However, none of that information is really relevant because, as Hammersoft points out, this file is not related to the shooting in any way but was taken in an earlier completely different context; so, using it makes no more sense than using any photo from a different period of Hodgkinson's life. If his appearance is so important to the reader's understanding of the event that took place, then it should be an image of him on that day or the days leading up to the shooting, not one from years before, that is pertinent to the event and which has been discussed in reliable sources.

While it might be interesting (and true) to say that humans tend to want to assess people visually, there is no cited article content in the section which states that is why this particular image needs to be used for that reason. Any discussion of general human desire to place a person in a particular social context should only be added to the article if it is something that reliable sources are actually commenting on; otherwise, it's basically WP:OR or WP:SYN and would most likely be removed from the article as such. This same approach should also be applied to non-free content images because the way the policy is currently worded is that such use is not automatic and the burden is placed upon those wanting to use the content. OR and SYN should not be indirectly added to articles through non-free content images unless it is something being discussed in reliables sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am surprised this is here again. I don't see any significant improvement of understanding of the attack by seeing a likeness of the perpetrator. This is not a biography, and so WP:NFCC#8 is not met. In short, everything Hammersoft said. —Kusma (t·c) 20:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the policy arguments raised above, particularly failing WP:NFCC #8, I suggest that our guidelines are also helpful in sorting out cases such as this where an individual may be discussed in a section of an article but does not merit a full biographical article. WP:NFCI #10 notes the appropriateness of using "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." (emphasis added) The article versus section distinction is a good one for judging the contextual significance and usefulness of providing a non-free image. Note that a photo of a deceased perpetrator can become contextually significant where the photograph itself has become part of the story. See, e.g., Boston_Marathon_bombing#Release_of_suspect_photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-delete - I don't know why it got undeleted and then relisted other than. Anyway, this image is non-free, and free content is strongly encouraged. A non-notable person whose substantial significance is just one shooting event... The non-free image fails to be irreplaceable. A free replacement can suffice: either a text of words or a Commons-permissible photo should be adequate enough. Previously, I said that it doesn't increase readers' understanding about the significance of the event. However, I hate to admit that the person was responsible for the event and was the main significant part of the event. Still, the non-free image doesn't increase readers' understanding about the non-notable person or the event itself. Others will say that deleting the image will lead to more re-uploadings or attempts to upload any non-free image of this person. However, Wikipedia is neither a repository nor a memorial, so readers and editors should be fine with the omission of the image and adequate, sufficient article content. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. What's the point of having non-free content criteria? In my experience the NFCC are so aggressively applied, so closely argued and minutely scrutinised for any excuse to remove them, that you can almost never get a non-free file past FFD. If we're going to delete files as clearly appropriate and proportionate and respectfully used as this one when no free image will ever be forthcoming, then surely we might as well go the de.wiki way, stop hosting files locally, and rely purely on Wikimedia Commons.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this file were a photo of him in the act of committing the crime for which the article is about, it would have direct historical relevance. For example; take a look at File:Gimli glider.JPG. This is a non-free file that illustrates an historic event. It can't be recreated, and no free file can ever be obtained. It just doesn't exist. If we didn't have this file, and instead attempted to use a non-free file of the same plane from four years earlier, we wouldn't accept it; it would have no relevance to the Gimli Glider article except by way of being the same plane. That's the problem we have here. This image has no historical relevance to this article. If it did, such as I mentioned above; being the person in the act of committing the crime, it never would have been brought to FfD. In the abstract, we have NFCC policy to limit the amount of non-free content allowed on this project that is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia. Even with that policy, we still have in excess of 580,000 non-free images on the project. This very likely makes Wikipedia THE largest repository of non-free media in the world; which is ironic given that we're supposed to be a free content project. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, I can't make sense of that position. When you say This image has no historical relevance to this article, I don't doubt that you believe it; but I can't connect that position with the facts. This is an article about a crime. It's a picture of the perpetrator. Surely its relevance is clear?
As for supposed to be a free content project -- I can understand that position but I'm here to build an encyclopaedia. I'm not here to supply free images for reusers and scraper sites. That's Wikimedia Commons' job. Our job, here, is to build an encyclopaedia. Free content if possible. But fair use if not, and if a fair use image legitimately enhances the reader's understanding of the topic then it needs to be included. And if the non-free content criteria say it can't be, then the problem isn't with the image. It's with the non-free content criteria. I'm sure you're very familiar with WP:HERE, but could I respectfully suggest reading it again in the context of this discussion?—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that the image is of him from four years before the crime, yes? If you want to change the non-free content criteria, you're more than welcome to initiate a discussion to do so. See WT:NFC. Your suggestions will be welcome. In the meantime, the policy as is blatantly forbids an image such as this being used in this context. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relevant fair use image that enhances the reader's understanding of the topic; no realistic possibility of a freely-licensed alternative as the subject is dead.—S Marshall T/C 15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, irrelevant image from 4 years ago that has nothing to do with this crime, and also has absolutely no sourced commentary regarding the non-free image, and fails WP:FREER along with a host of other NFC issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is generally considered acceptable to use a non free image of the subject to illustrate biographies of dead people, as long as it's unlikely there are any free equivalents. That means that the NFCC criteria are usually interpreted as being met in this case, and in particular that not including an image of the subject would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. Now this person is not notable and does not have a standalone biography, but we are dealing with what is in effect a biography of the subject embedded within another article, and the editorial decision of whether we put that content as a standalone page or as part of another page has got very little to do with how it improves the reader's understanding. Nor do I see any case that the image is replaceable, except by other non-free images. Hut 8.5 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in which the image is used is most emphatically not a biography. That we should include an image here, when we don't have a biography, violates multiple principles of WT:NFC guideline. For example, in discographies, if a particular album is not notable enough for its own article, that does not mean that a discography then gets to host an image of the album cover, since the discography (by your argument in this example) would be the article that covers the album. If this perpetrator some day did have an article about him, then fine; having an image of him on the article would be acceptable. But, if he's not notable enough for his own article, he's definitely not notable enough to include a non-free image of him. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the article which includes the image is a biography, I said that the section which uses it is. If the subject had got sufficient source coverage to make the subject notable then we would spin that section out into a standalone article, as with Seung-Hui Cho. Everybody seems to agree that at that point it would be acceptable to use the image, which means that whatever NFCC violations you think prevent the image from being used here must vanish if we simply moved the text somewhere else. That doesn't make any sense to me. The NFCC do not mention notability at all. The NFCC issues which have been raised here are things like the amount of value the image adds to the place it's used. That has got nothing to do with this person's notability or the place the text is included. Your discography example is not comparable to this situation because a single line in a list of albums by some artist is not comparable to an article about that album (in terms of the text, not the location of the text). In cases where we do have mini-articles about a recording embedded in an article about another recording, as with cover versions, we do often use a non-free image to illustrate that section. Hut 8.5 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my example, even describing this section as a biography doesn't mean we get to include a non-free image. If he were notable enough for his own stand along article, fine. He isn't. Another example of this sort of case is character lists where we don't include non-free images for every character in the list, which often have extensive information on the character but aren't notable enough for their own article. With all respect, your assertion fails. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that you think that the person's notability is the deciding factor here. What I'm not seeing is much support for that position, other than appeals to completely different situations as alleged precedents. If this image is a horrible violation of NFCC, but it would be fine in a standalone article, then logically that means that the image fails at least one of the NFCC criteria at the moment but would not if we decided to create a new page with exactly the same content as the section it's currently used in. Which of the criteria is it, and why? Hut 8.5 18:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an article were created with exactly the same content, it would very likely be deleted. That aside, the reason we would allow it in such an article is because we have carved out an exception for biographical articles for people who are dead. No such exception exists for such people outside of biographical articles. If we did permit such use, then non-free images of dead people could be liberally used throughout the project...and that obviously is not in line with our mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, images of deceased people in biographical articles about that person are not exempt from NFCC. The reason that they are tolerated is that they are considered to be compliant with the NFCC. WP:NFCI, which states that using non-free images of the subject in biographical articles of deceased people is typically acceptable, makes this very clear: All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. The reason that a standalone article would be deleted is because of the state of the source coverage of the person in question, that has nothing to do with passing the NFCC. Hut 8.5 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I did not say "exempt". I said "exception". There's a very, very distinct difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what you're driving at here. There is no exception, exemption or special treatment of any sort for non-free images of deceased people in biographical articles. They have to meet the same NFCC rules as everything else. And I don't see any reason why that rationale doesn't also work for this image. Hut 8.5 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is. If you'd like proof of this, ask at WT:NFC. I know (and I'm NOT casting aspersions here) you've never posted there before. But, this is common knowledge there. We do allow non-free imagery of dead people if reasonable, but fruitless, efforts have been made to obtain free imagery for depiction purposes in the biographical article of the deceased. Please see WP:NFCI #10, which codifies this guideline. Note that it says "articles about that person". The article where this image is used is about a crime, not the person. It doesn't say "in sections about that person". There's a reason for that, as noted before. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NFCI point 10 says that we do allow non-free images of deceased people to be used in biographical articles about them, but that does not support the point you're making here. NFCI is a non-exhaustive list of the most common cases where fair use images are acceptable. The fact that this image does not fall under any of those categories therefore means absolutely nothing. On the other hand, NFCI makes it clear that all non-free images have to abide by the NFCC, which means there are no exceptions, and the fact that page also says that biographies of deceased people are generally acceptable use cases means that the guideline thinks those uses are compliant with NFCC. So again, why does that compliance not extend to this image? I'm afraid you are going to have to cite something more convincing than what is allegedly "common knowledge" of people who post to some talk page. Hut 8.5 22:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to make a case that this wasn't covered in NFC. I showed you that it is. Now you're saying it isn't covered in NFC because it's not a case specifically outlined. If that is the argument that we are to use to retain content, then virtually any content not covered by the specific cases already present would be permissible. You can't have it both ways. WT:NFC isn't just "some talk page". Your derision of it does not take away from the fact that it is THE talk page for discussing NFC policy and guideline. It's not some obscure page buried in a disused portal or something. I beg of you, if you really believe this is somehow permissible use, then ask the question at WT:NFC. I won't say a word to anyone, but I can guarantee you the answer will be an emphatic "no". --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that this was covered in NFCI. I said that it was an analogous situation to one which is covered in NFCI and that the same justification applies. I'm still not seeing any reasoning as to why this is not the case. Instead of offering a policy, a guideline or even a logical argument to support your position, you're assuring me that if I post something on the NFC talk page then people will agree with you, even though the guideline contradicts what you're saying. I'm afraid that simply isn't good enough and I can't see a reasonable closer taking that argument into consideration. Hut 8.5 00:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, we're going to be at DRV. Again. Hut, I don't know at what point you became of the opinion that we can liberally use non-free content on this project. I'm sorry that point came to pass. I really am. I wish I could show you how that stance is wrong. My best efforts have proven insufficient to the task. I'm honestly gob smacked. I laid out in unequivocal terms why this use isn't allowed, cited policy and guideline and referenced policy and mission from the Wikimedia Foundation itself, all of which refute the notion that this is acceptable use. Nevertheless, it's all swept aside, and we have to permit this usage and anyone who thinks otherwise (i.e., the closer of this FfD) is unreasonable if they conclude it should be removed from this use. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a stand-alone article about Hodgkinson, then it would be fair to assume that it would (ideally) be written to cover his entire life, good or bad. It would then probably be OK to use a representative image of him in the article for indentication purposes per item 10 of of NFCI. The primary topic of this article, however, is an event, which in my opinion means that any non-free images used should be contextually tied to the event. For example, if there was a non-free image of Hodgkinson's actually from the event or if he had somehow escaped and a photo/sketch of him was released by the police to aid in his apprehension, then I could see how that might be contextually connected to the event.

I don't think the people arguing delete are claiming that no image of him can ever be used at all; they seem to be arguing that this particular image should not be used and the reasons they are giving are based upon how they feel the policy applies to this particular use. On the other hand, it seems that those arguing keep are claiming an image is needed, but none of them have clearly stated why they feel that this particular image is needed. No one has clearly explained why this photo is to be preferred over any other non-free photos that might be found of Hodgkinson. No one has really posted how they feel this particular photo significantly improves the reader's understand to such an degree that not seeing this image will be detrimental to that understanding. What information does the reader specifically gain from seeing this image that helps them better understand what is written about Hodgkinson in the article? There are a number of images to be found of Hodgkinson on Google. How does this image more signficantly improve the reader's understanding than any of them? I think this is important because I think that's what WP:NFCC#8 is asking for in a case such as this. Maybe more could be added to the relevant section to strengthen connection between article content and this particular image? Ideally that would be sourced commentary from reliable sources and not just WP:OR or WP:SYN. Perhaps there's another image, such as this one on the FBI's website which might be PD and which could be better tied into content about the actual event that would make this non-free replaceable fair use or is better suited for the article as non-free?

Arguments that the current policy is too strict or that Wikipedia should do what the rest of the world does are not without merit, but they are things better discussed on the WT:NFCC. The same goes for arguments that images of criminals in general should be allowed in article like this because that applies to a particular type of usage, not this particular use of this particular image. FWIW, I am not opposed to changing my opinion, but (once again) nobody has clearly explained why it is that this particular image is needed and the burden is upon them to do so per WP:NFCCE; that is how the policy is written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes more sense to me than Hammersoft's arguments, but I'm still not sure I agree. No, I don't think anybody has made a case for this particular image over most of the others out there, but I don't think that's very relevant in the absence of a better argument for using another non-free image. If we have a reasonable case for using a non-free image in this situation, and no argument that some other image is better, then we might as well use it. If there is another image out there that would be better suited here then I would be happy to consider that one instead. Regarding your mugshot image, a similar one was raised at the last FFD and was shown to originate with state or local police, meaning that it was likely copyrighted. And there is a case for using this image over that one if they are both non-free, namely that readers tend to associate mugshots with criminals. It does seem to me that most of the points you're raising would be equally applicable to using the image for identification purposes in a standalone biography, which you admit is likely fine. I think this image is getting fierce scrutiny because it doesn't fall under an accepted use case for non-free images, rather than because of the actual issues involved. Hut 8.5 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to keep responding without repeating oneself, but I think it is relevant that nobody has been able to clearly establish why this image is essential to the reader's understanding because this the image being discussed and NFCCE clearly states that it is their duty to show how it meets all ten non-free content criteria. The policy also clearly states non-free image use is not automatic and that each use must satisfy all the criteria. Since this file has already been through a contentious FFD, a contentious DRV and is now again at FFD, I think its fair to say that its use is contentious. Some editors have posted that the file is relevant and significantly improves the reader's understanding, but it doesn't appear as if any of them has made any attempt to clarify its non-free use rationale or add relevant content to the article to try and address the concerns raised about its use. Arguing that any image can be used is not really the same as aruging that this particular image should be used. Moreover, arguments which resemble WP:ITSHISTORIC, WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:ITSOBVIOUS are not as helpful as specifically explaining why and how this particular image satisfies the NFCCP, particularly NFCC#8 since that seems to be the main point of contention.

The image we are discussing here is a crop from this larger image. So, perhaps someone in favor of keeping this file can explain why it is more necessary for the reader to see a crop of this image than this, this, this, this, or any other images which can be found of Hodgkinson? What information does the reader get from this image that he/she cannot get from any of these other images? If the response is that any of these can be equally used, then that is, in my opinion, kind of showing per NFCC#8 that the non-free use justification for this particular photo might not be as strong as some editors are claiming.

As for the article talk page discussion about the FBI image being prejudicial, at least the FBI image does have context and relevant additional sourced content about it could seemingly be added to the article to the second to last paragraph as part of the content about the FBI's investigation. The concerns about WP:MUG seem more pertinent to a stand-alone article about the subject than a section titled "Perpetrator" in which is essentially about how Hodgkinson planned and committed a crime: article content which is pretty much already presenting him in a disparaging light from start to finish. The poster image is already being cited as a source twice in the section as 2017 Congressional baseball shooting#cite_note-June_14.2C_2017-46. I wouldn't suggest using this image in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about Hodgkinson, but it does some seem more suitable for a section about the crime than an unrelated image of Hodgkinson taken in another context at a completely different time of his life. It also seems that any concerns about about whether the poster is a derivative work could possibly be addressed by adding a PD template (maybe {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-FBI}}) and a {{Information}} for the poster, and a non-free template (maybe {{Non-free biog-pic}}) / non-free use rationale for the photo (maybe {{Non-free use rationale biog}}). This is something I've seen done before with certain derivtive works partly containing a non-free image which might be workable here. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to me that many of these concerns would either not be raised in the closely related case of a biographical article of a deceased person or would be held to have obvious answers. Granted, this is not a standalone biographical article, but we are talking about a large amount of biographical content not immediately related to the shooting, such as his political activity, prior criminal history, business dealings and marriage. If we did have a standalone article on Hodgkinson then it would likely have more of the same kind of content, as all the available sources would cover him in the context of this shooting. I understand if the distinction between a standalone article and biographical content in another article is important for you, but it doesn't seem to me that there is that much difference.
It would be rather unusual for the uploader of an image used in the biography of a deceased person to provide a justification for using that image above all the other available non-free images. Nor does there appear to be any requirement to do so. NFCC#8 is about ensuring that the image adds value to the article, not about ensuring that it adds more value than any other image that could be used. The uploader will typically just pick one based on availability or aesthetic considerations. The fact that an image of the subject adds value to a biography of a deceased person is also not typically disputed, or is easily resolved with a phrase such as "visual identification of the subject". Such a justification isn't being accepted here although the circumstances are very similar. The image aids with identification of Hodgkinson, and Hodgkinson is the subject of this section and an integral part of the subject of the article.
I would be perfectly happy with the replacement of this image with another, and I see that as more of a decision to be taken by the editors of the article than a deletion discussion (provided the situation is one where the use of a fair use image is acceptable). I do, however, object to labelling an image as public domain or the work of the US government without actual evidence of this. The fact that the image appears on the FBI's website does not mean it was taken from the FBI, they may well be reusing an image taken by another law enforcement agency which retains copyright over images. Unless we have evidence that the mugshot image is in the public domain we'll have to treat it as yet another non-free image. Hut 8.5 18:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quickly clarify, I did not suggest labelling the mugshot photo as public domain in my last post. I wrote that if the poster is considered to be a derivative work, then maybe it could be treated as PD; the mugshot photo, however, would be still treated as non-free with its own licensing and non-free use rationale. So, the file would have two copyright licenses: one for the poster and one for the mugshot, and it would have an information template for the poster and a non-free use rationale for the mugshot photo. This is different from the de minimis argument made on the article's talk page. As for the other stuff about "visual identification" and NFCC#8 in this particular case, I still disagree for pretty much the reasons I've already posted. I don't think it really helps to repost all/some of that again, but it's there if anyone else is interested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it seems to me that a relatively small number of contributors have, over the years, been insisting on a narrower and narrower interpretation of what kind of images qualify to be used under NFCC.
Sadly, in my experience, none of those contributors who insist on this strict interpretation can explain why we should have strict rules.
As with the others who voiced a keep I think it is ridiculous to deny our readers an fair use image of an infamous dead person, when every newspaper and news broadcast in the entire world is free to make "fair use" of that image.
Some respondents here baldly assert that a text description would serve our purposes just as well as an image like this. Hello! Maybe you are not a visual person. Don't abuse the rest of us for whom a text description is not an adequate substitute for an image! Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, if you haven't understood why NFCC is strict, then you haven't understood Foundation:Mission. Our mission is to produce educational content under a free license or in the public domain. When you include non-free content, you compromise that mission. Therefore, per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy there has to be a very strong reason to include non-free content. To your argument about newspapers and broadcast journalism using a non-free image of him; (1) We are not a news organization. That lies that away. We are an encyclopedia. (2) They can use non-free content under fair use law without compromising their mission. Your argument appears to be that we should use non-free content within terms of fair use law, and leave it at that? If I'm wrong about your stance, please let me know. Understand that such a stance is completely at odds with our purpose here. If you want to produce educational content without the encumbrance of NFCC policy, then I invite you to participate in any of the wide array of Wikia projects, which generally as a whole abide by fair use law, rather than any semblance of the NFCC policy we have here. In summary, you've provided a rationale to use the image under fair use law. You've not provided a rationale to use the image under NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hammersoft: I can see that your mission is to produce freely licensed content. You're clearly very passionate about it. But you're talking to volunteers. You do not get to tell a volunteer what they're here for. Inherent in the word "volunteer" is that each person has their own reasons for contributing to Wikipedia. Some of us are here to write an encyclopaedia.
I get that the Wikimedia Foundation loves free content, and I agree that we should use free content wherever there's a free content file that would serve; but opposing fair use ---- where there's a fair use image that we can't replace with free content, we can lawfully and ethically use, and that helps the reader understand the topic ---- is obstructing us from producing an encyclopaedia.
Honestly, volunteering to write an encyclopaedia among Wikipedians where you can't use fair use content is like volunteering to build a house in a team where half the builders believe that bricks are evil and insist everything has to be made of timber and studwork. It wastes time, it frustrates other editors and you end up with a house that's needlessly rickety.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to tell anyone what to do nor would I. I made suggestions on where to go if you don't believe in the mission of this project. It isn't my mission. I have no mission. I work in adherence of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who is not willing to work towards that goal is in the wrong place. The house here becomes increasingly rickety with the more non-free content uses we have. That is why we have the resolutions, policies, and guidelines to ensure we have an extremely strong reason for using it...far more so than fair use law requires. Fair use law here is actually rather irrelevant. Mike Godwin, former counsel to the WMF already made that abundantly clear some years back when he noted (correctly) that Wikipedia being an educational resource has very wide liberty to use copyrighted content under the provisions of fair use law. But that is not relevant because with our resolutions, policies, and guidelines we have established ourselves in a way that guarantees compliance with fair use law pretty much no matter what we do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting the non-free content criteria. I'll try to be succinct.
First of all, the non-free use rationale for this copyrighted image says its purpose is "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". 2017 Congressional baseball shooting is not a biographical article. The article for which the rationale is relevant is James T. Hodgkinson; if that page were an article and not a redirect, then the rationale would be correct. It is not.
The article in which the image is used is 2017 Congressional baseball shooting. Reading that article, there is zero reliably-sourced prose there that requires this copyrighted image in order to be understood, and there is nothing written in the article that is less understandable without the image. This is the requirement of the eighth non-free content criterion.
At both the original discussion, as well as the deletion review, many many arguments were put forth to support the retention of this file. None addressed these failures. Now that I've commented here though, I'll keep an eye out for any replies and be happy to discourse further. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to S Marshall: Not sure how to respond to your stance on NFCC. The image is neither the front cover of a musical product, i.e. an album or a single. It is not a film poster either. Then again, I see your point on how to help readers increase their understandings toward the topic itself, the baseball shooting. Still, how can we not trust readers to understand the article without the image of the perpetrator? Per MOS:LEAD, most readers can read just the lead and then move on, or they can briefly read the article and then move on. For readers wanting to thoroughly read the whole article, the event is still disturbing as is. Seven got injured, including one in critical condition. The shooter was fatally shot. Readers can individually decide whether to sympathize or disdain the shooter responsible for the injuries of others. This image... how effective is this image to readers of this article? We already have other images of perpetrators deleted. Why is this image an exception to deletion? --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stellenbosch University Botanical Garden - Conophytum herreanthus.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altered version of File:Conophytum herreanthus.jpg. Unusable. XXN, 22:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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