Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 March 16
March 16
[edit]
- 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- File:Vickers Harry F 1940s v01.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Phil Toll Jr (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vickers Harry F 1940s v01.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:01, 16 March 2020 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- File:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cramyourspam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sculpture arnoldo pomodoro painting terry ward at smithsonian annmarie 2009.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- File:Riora FC 2018.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Riora Football Club (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- File:Riora FC.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Riora Football Club (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riora Football Club. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- File:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kingsif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Decorative use of non-free album cover art in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game#Soundtrack which fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free album cover art can be uploaded and used per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but this is generally only when the cover art is being used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the album itself; other types of uses are not automatically prohibitted by WP:NFCC, but they tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3). For this reason, soundtrack album covers are pretty much never considered acceptable in articles about films (WP:FILMSCORE) and articles about TV shows (MOS:TVPRODUCTION) unless there is critical sourced commentary about the cover art itself (not just the soundtrack album), and I see no reason why the same application of NFCC#8 wouldn't apply to this article about a videogame. There is no sourced critical commentary about the cover art in the section about soundtrack and even if there was this type of non-free use is also problematic per WP:NFCC#3a since it's bascially the same image at File:Scottpilgrimthegame.jpg being used in the main infobox of the article to identify the game. This file was originally tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} by JJMC89, but that tag was disputed at File talk:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg#Re. NFCC prod; so, I'm starting a discussion about the file's use here at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC 3a and 8. The soundtrack cover is similar to the game cover. The soundtrack cover is not
significantly discussed within the article
.WP:NFC#cite note-3 — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:12, 22 March 2020 (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 discussion was: keep. Consensus is to keep this image, but per the updates on 22 March 2020, use it in the article on the book and not in the article on Benson. There is only a FUR for the article on the book currently, so if it is re-added to the article on Benson, a FUR must be added for that article as well. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- File:The black hammer.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Epachamo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Decorative use of non-free cover art in Ezra Taft Benson#Civil Rights Movement which fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free book cover art is allowed to be uploaded per item 1 WP:NFCI, but generally only when the cover art is used for primary identification purposes in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the book in question. While ther types of non-free use or uses in other articles in not automatically prohibited, they do tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 absent any specific sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself to tie the article content to the image. This file was originally tagged for speedy deletion by JJMC89 and that tagging was challenged at File talk:The black hammer.gif by it's uploader and with this edit summary by Chris.sherlock. While I think those things were done in good faith, I don't they accurately reflect how this type of non-free use tends to generally be assessed per WP:NFCCP. Even though there is some discussion of the book in the "Civil Rights Movement" section of the article about Benson, there is nothing specific to the cover art itself or any controversy associated with it. There is a caption added to the file that is supported by a citation, but bascially only seems to leave to an archived version of the book (which actually might be a problem per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER) but which doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary about the book's cover. If this book meets WP:NBOOK and someone wants to create a stand-alone article about it, then it would be perfectly fine to use this file there; the current use in the Benson article, however, doesn't comply with relevant policy which means the files should be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary that goes beyond a simple descriptive statement about the cover itself is added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: This is not merely a decorative image. This image is about the highly racist book with a foreword by Benson, and the image caption even says it as such. There is no need for a sole article on the book (though I would not object) but it is absolutely pertinent to the article. The image on the front of the book alone was criticized for being racist. I will need to locate the reference to this. This is also the first edition cover of this highly charged book. The cover alone illustrates the book, one of the few times that the cover of the book reflects it's contents.Southern Poverty Law Center uses the book cover. The image itself was in the first edition of the book and definitely shows a black man's head cut off, dripping blood to a Soviet style sickle. A description of the cover really doesn't do it justice. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Everything you posted about the cover is most likely true, but it's opinion until it can be supported by citation to reliable sources. I wouldn't list this as one of my favorite book covers of all time and can completely understand and empathize with anyone who finds it offensive because it is offensive in my opinion. However, any content about any controversy associated with the book cover is going to need to be supported by critical commentary about it within the relevant section of the article that is supported by citations to reliable sources and then perhaps even properly attributed as such; otherwise, what you have is some unsourced claims written in Wikipedia's voice that can be removed at anytime per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Even the caption of the file is not really supported by a proper citation and could be removed/revised at anytime. Moreover, even if sourced critical commentary about the cover can be find, there still has to be a strong contextual connection to Benson himself to justify the use of the file. Benson only wrote the forward to the book in question, and there's no indication (as of yet) that he had anything to do with the cover art itself. If he designed the cover or otherwise had some creative input into its selection, and his involvement in the process of determining the cover is something that is discussed by reliable sources, then perhaps it would make some sense to show it. We might guess that he somehow know what the book's cover was going to be before writing the forward and thus perhaps gave it his stamp of approval, but guessing isn't going to be good enough. So, unless there is not only sourced critical commentary about any controversy associated with the cover but also sourced critical commentary about Benson's connection with the cover that goes beyond "he wrote the forward for the book" (perhaps he specifically commented about the cover at some point later on that generated some controversy), justifying it's non-free use per NFCC#1, NFCC#8, NFC#cite_note-3 and if perhaps a type of "image undue" is going to be pretty hard to do.The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center states the cover as "offensive" would be something good to add to an article about the book itself or maybe even possible an article about offensive/racial book covers, etc. The fact that SPLC website shows a photo of Benson with Eisenhower, but makes no mention of who actually wrote the book seems a bit odd and more like they have an issue with Benson himself and that the cover was added more for that purpose than to comment on a "particularly vicious and racist book". It's not like the photo they use shows Benson holding the book and smiling it or shows him at signing copies of it somewhere. They showed two unrelated images side by side and did a little WP:SYNTH to try and somehow tie the two together. So, no I don't think that kind of thing justifies the file's use in the Benson article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- A citation has now been provided. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Everything you posted about the cover is most likely true, but it's opinion until it can be supported by citation to reliable sources. I wouldn't list this as one of my favorite book covers of all time and can completely understand and empathize with anyone who finds it offensive because it is offensive in my opinion. However, any content about any controversy associated with the book cover is going to need to be supported by critical commentary about it within the relevant section of the article that is supported by citations to reliable sources and then perhaps even properly attributed as such; otherwise, what you have is some unsourced claims written in Wikipedia's voice that can be removed at anytime per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Even the caption of the file is not really supported by a proper citation and could be removed/revised at anytime. Moreover, even if sourced critical commentary about the cover can be find, there still has to be a strong contextual connection to Benson himself to justify the use of the file. Benson only wrote the forward to the book in question, and there's no indication (as of yet) that he had anything to do with the cover art itself. If he designed the cover or otherwise had some creative input into its selection, and his involvement in the process of determining the cover is something that is discussed by reliable sources, then perhaps it would make some sense to show it. We might guess that he somehow know what the book's cover was going to be before writing the forward and thus perhaps gave it his stamp of approval, but guessing isn't going to be good enough. So, unless there is not only sourced critical commentary about any controversy associated with the cover but also sourced critical commentary about Benson's connection with the cover that goes beyond "he wrote the forward for the book" (perhaps he specifically commented about the cover at some point later on that generated some controversy), justifying it's non-free use per NFCC#1, NFCC#8, NFC#cite_note-3 and if perhaps a type of "image undue" is going to be pretty hard to do.The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center states the cover as "offensive" would be something good to add to an article about the book itself or maybe even possible an article about offensive/racial book covers, etc. The fact that SPLC website shows a photo of Benson with Eisenhower, but makes no mention of who actually wrote the book seems a bit odd and more like they have an issue with Benson himself and that the cover was added more for that purpose than to comment on a "particularly vicious and racist book". It's not like the photo they use shows Benson holding the book and smiling it or shows him at signing copies of it somewhere. They showed two unrelated images side by side and did a little WP:SYNTH to try and somehow tie the two together. So, no I don't think that kind of thing justifies the file's use in the Benson article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion: Please note that I have been actively adding to the Ezra Taft Benson article. I agree with Marchjuly's earlier concern that at the time, there was nothing about the book cover in the article itself. I have added relevant content appropriately sourced. Historian D. Michael Quinn is a well respected historian, and as reliable a source as can be found. He himself thought it noteworthy to include a description of the books cover in his book and thought it relevant, an excerpt of which was published in the periodical Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and can be found online on page 60 at: https://www.mormonchronicle.com/img/Ezra-Taft-Benson-and-Mormon-Political-Conflicts.pdf . It's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement. The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itself ("The Mormon Hierarchy: Extentions of Power", "Thunder From the Right", and "The Mormon Church & Blacks"). The fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different article. The Book would have been lost to history had Benson not written the foreword. Is the cover notable? Yes. Why is it notable? Because Ezra Taft Benson wrote the foreword, and endorsed the book. Even if he did not write the foreword, he endorsed the book, which is notable in and of itself. Imagine if today's Secretary of Agriculture endorsed a similar book today? Would that not be notable, even if he had zero input into the selection of the cover art? Epachamo (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN. The reader doesn't really need to see this particular book cover to understand that Benson was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. There is distinction between what we might personally deemed to be "notable" and what is "Wikipedia notable" and the latter is determined by whether the cover itself has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that Benson wrote the forward of the book or endorsed the book seems something certainly worth mentioning in the article, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's also just as necessary to show a cover of the book. Moreover, the role of the SPLC and the role of Wikipedia aren't necessarily one and the same; for example, the SPLC might not feel obligated to adhere to things like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or even WP:BLP (in the case of a living person) like Wikipedia expects us to do. In addition, the SLPC could simply add pretty much any image it wanted to its website under the concept of fair use, whereas the WP:NFCC apply much more restrictive criteria for using copyrighted content than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background. As for your question about today's Secretary of Agriculture endorsing a similar book, again adding sourced text content to his/her article might be an acceptable thing to do, but that doesn't mean the book's cover needs to also needs to be added to the article and it probably shouldn't if the cover itself is not the subject of sourced commentary which particularly relates to the S of A.I think that because this cover is so bad and because Benson was a rather bad guy, there's an assumption that the cover needs to be seen so as to really impress upon the reader just how bad of both things are/were. Suppose things were flipped a bit and there was a really great/positive message, book, movie, painting or whatever that Benson endorsed or somehow was associated with (i.e. something really really good); we wouldn't necessary include an image of that book's cover, that movie's album, that painting in the article just because it was somehow connected to Benson. Benson was the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints, but we don't need to add File:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.svg to the article for the reader to understand that. He was the Secretary of Agriculture, but we don't need to add File:Flag of the United States Secretary of Agriculture.svg to the article for the reader to understand that. He was also a member of the Idaho Hall of Fame, but once again we don't need to upload that organization's logo as a non-free logo and add it to the article for the reader to understand that. Benson seems to have actually written a number of books himself, but we would add an image of the cover of even his best known work just because he wrote the book.The subject of a Wikipedia biography might choose to endorse lots of things, some of which are worth mentioning within the article; that doesn't necessarily mean, however, that we need to include images of such things in their Wikipedia biographies. We don't automatically add non-free book covers to articles about authors who actually write the books, non-free album covers to articles about bands who released the albums, or non-free movie posters to articles about film makers/actors; we only would do such a thing if things like WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, etc. were clearly not an issue; in other words, we would only do so if relevant policy clearly justified us doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t think you understand OR or SYNTH. I read the source material he has cited and the author literally directly speaks about the cover of the book. I strongly urge you to read his source material. It’s a valid secondary source. There is no synthesis or original research I can see, and the editor has not inferred anything. I think you need to be careful with assertions like this, you are rather over-egging the pudding. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I read the expanded version of the section, and I still don't think there's sufficient justification for using the file. The current version is better than before, but I don't think a sentence describing the book's cover is sufficient for justifying the non-free use of the file. Of the new sources that were added, I explained above why I don't think the SPLC really helps justify the file's use, and there's no link provided for the other source so there's no real way for me to check it. Since you apparently can access the source and read what it says perhaps you can clarify things more. If the source is the same as this provided above, then there's for sure lots of commentary about Benson being anti-Civil Rights and anti-communist in that excerpt, but the only comment specifically on the cover that I can find is "an overtly racist book which featured the decapitated head of an African-American on its cover" which again I don't really think is enough to justify the file's use in the article.As for OR and SYN, I posted
While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN
, in which I purposely used "we" not "you" because it is we who need to be careful of posting anything that doesn't specifically reflect what's stated in reliable sources but which might be based upon how we interpret what we have read. Now, if you want me to be more specific, I do think we need to be careful making statements like thisIt's pretty clear from reading many talks by Benson that the book cover succinctly and fairly depicts Benson's thoughts on the Civil Rights Movement
,The three academic books I could find on the subject all portray Benson as being adamantly opposed to the civil rights movement, to the extreme degree depicted in the picture itself
andThe fact that the SPLC associates the book cover more with Benson than with the books author is a further indication that it should be included in the Benson article, and not a different article
because those types of statements are our own interpretations or critical commentary on the situation that have little value to Wikipedia unless they are actually the interpretations/critical commentary found in reliable sources. Anyway, if my opinion is in the minority and the consensus turn out to be that file's use is justified, then that's fine and a consensus doesn't need to be unanimous; however, I've seen nothing posted in this discussion or in the changes made to the article (at least so far) that makes me think the file's use does comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)- You are taking someone’s justification and prior knowledge and calling it synthesis. SYNTH doesn’t apply to talk page comments in debates. It merely applies to the article space. The source he provided baldly states it was racist and describes the image in stark terms. That is neither OR or SYNTH. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- My comments about OR and SYN had nothing to do with this discussion or any discussion on a talk page. They were related to article content. That was what I meant when I posted
inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN.
I thought that was understood since we appeared to be discussing adding content to the article about the image and Benson's connection to the image. OR and SYN only apply to article content; so, when someone brings them up who seems to have been editing for quite awhile, then it should be kind of understand that's the context the terms are being used. If that part of my post was confusing, however, then my apologies and let me rephrase it as "inferring such things in Wikipedia articles often runs afoul of OR and SYN". -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- My comments about OR and SYN had nothing to do with this discussion or any discussion on a talk page. They were related to article content. That was what I meant when I posted
- I still feel there is value in keeping the image, and the source connecting the image to Benson is strong, but will also acquiesce if I am in the minority. I'll add some users I respect and have worked with, many of whom have reverted my own edits. Users: John Foxe, Awilley, FyzixFighter, Doug Weller, TaivoLinguist, Bobamnertiopsis, Charlesdrakew, Geneva11, WQUlrich, Rollidan, Jgstokes, ChristensenMJ, White whirlwind, Rachel Helps (BYU) and ConnieBland, I invite your respected opinions on whether to keep this image in the Ezra Taft Benson article. Epachamo (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of just "pinging" a bunch of individual users whom you respect (even if they've reverted you in the past), it might've been better to use a {{Please see}} on the talk pages of some relevant WikiProjects or other more general noticeboards/talk pages (e.g. WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC, WT:IUP, WP:NPOV/N, WP:OR/N) if you're seeking wider input from the community so as to avoid any possible issues related to WP:CANVASS. Moreover, from a purely technical perspective, your attempt to notify others might not have worked since you forgot to sign your post; "ping"-type notifications only apparently work when the "pinger" signs their post at the time of the "pinging". — Marchjuly (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, good advice, much appreciated. Canvassing is not my intent. I am not trying to 'sneak' this into the article, or violate NPOV. I have posted to the WT:NFCC, WP:NPOV/N and WP:OR/N notice boards. I noticed it was already in the LDS Project noticeboard. Epachamo (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of just "pinging" a bunch of individual users whom you respect (even if they've reverted you in the past), it might've been better to use a {{Please see}} on the talk pages of some relevant WikiProjects or other more general noticeboards/talk pages (e.g. WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC, WT:IUP, WP:NPOV/N, WP:OR/N) if you're seeking wider input from the community so as to avoid any possible issues related to WP:CANVASS. Moreover, from a purely technical perspective, your attempt to notify others might not have worked since you forgot to sign your post; "ping"-type notifications only apparently work when the "pinger" signs their post at the time of the "pinging". — Marchjuly (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are taking someone’s justification and prior knowledge and calling it synthesis. SYNTH doesn’t apply to talk page comments in debates. It merely applies to the article space. The source he provided baldly states it was racist and describes the image in stark terms. That is neither OR or SYNTH. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I read the expanded version of the section, and I still don't think there's sufficient justification for using the file. The current version is better than before, but I don't think a sentence describing the book's cover is sufficient for justifying the non-free use of the file. Of the new sources that were added, I explained above why I don't think the SPLC really helps justify the file's use, and there's no link provided for the other source so there's no real way for me to check it. Since you apparently can access the source and read what it says perhaps you can clarify things more. If the source is the same as this provided above, then there's for sure lots of commentary about Benson being anti-Civil Rights and anti-communist in that excerpt, but the only comment specifically on the cover that I can find is "an overtly racist book which featured the decapitated head of an African-American on its cover" which again I don't really think is enough to justify the file's use in the article.As for OR and SYN, I posted
- I don’t think you understand OR or SYNTH. I read the source material he has cited and the author literally directly speaks about the cover of the book. I strongly urge you to read his source material. It’s a valid secondary source. There is no synthesis or original research I can see, and the editor has not inferred anything. I think you need to be careful with assertions like this, you are rather over-egging the pudding. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- While we might be able to personally infer lots of things about Benson and the book cover, inferring such things on Wikipedia often runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYN. The reader doesn't really need to see this particular book cover to understand that Benson was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. There is distinction between what we might personally deemed to be "notable" and what is "Wikipedia notable" and the latter is determined by whether the cover itself has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that Benson wrote the forward of the book or endorsed the book seems something certainly worth mentioning in the article, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's also just as necessary to show a cover of the book. Moreover, the role of the SPLC and the role of Wikipedia aren't necessarily one and the same; for example, the SPLC might not feel obligated to adhere to things like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or even WP:BLP (in the case of a living person) like Wikipedia expects us to do. In addition, the SLPC could simply add pretty much any image it wanted to its website under the concept of fair use, whereas the WP:NFCC apply much more restrictive criteria for using copyrighted content than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background. As for your question about today's Secretary of Agriculture endorsing a similar book, again adding sourced text content to his/her article might be an acceptable thing to do, but that doesn't mean the book's cover needs to also needs to be added to the article and it probably shouldn't if the cover itself is not the subject of sourced commentary which particularly relates to the S of A.I think that because this cover is so bad and because Benson was a rather bad guy, there's an assumption that the cover needs to be seen so as to really impress upon the reader just how bad of both things are/were. Suppose things were flipped a bit and there was a really great/positive message, book, movie, painting or whatever that Benson endorsed or somehow was associated with (i.e. something really really good); we wouldn't necessary include an image of that book's cover, that movie's album, that painting in the article just because it was somehow connected to Benson. Benson was the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints, but we don't need to add File:Logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.svg to the article for the reader to understand that. He was the Secretary of Agriculture, but we don't need to add File:Flag of the United States Secretary of Agriculture.svg to the article for the reader to understand that. He was also a member of the Idaho Hall of Fame, but once again we don't need to upload that organization's logo as a non-free logo and add it to the article for the reader to understand that. Benson seems to have actually written a number of books himself, but we would add an image of the cover of even his best known work just because he wrote the book.The subject of a Wikipedia biography might choose to endorse lots of things, some of which are worth mentioning within the article; that doesn't necessarily mean, however, that we need to include images of such things in their Wikipedia biographies. We don't automatically add non-free book covers to articles about authors who actually write the books, non-free album covers to articles about bands who released the albums, or non-free movie posters to articles about film makers/actors; we only would do such a thing if things like WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, etc. were clearly not an issue; in other words, we would only do so if relevant policy clearly justified us doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We are not censored and if this is the cover its the cover.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. While the book is discussed in the article, the is no critical commentary about how the cover itself is connected to Benson (who is not the author of the book or the cover artist), only a description of the cover. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)- UPDATE: I have created the article The Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence and White Alternatives per suggestion above of Marchjuly. With this article in place, I recommend that we Keep the image, but I am fine if it is removed from the Ezra Taft Benson article. Hopefully this solution is acceptable to all parties. Epachamo (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Remove from Ezra Taft Benson per WP:NFC#UUI #6 (WP:NFCC#3). A rationale is required for the book article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I updated the rationale on the image to have it point to the book article. I assume that is what you meant? Are you saying the Book Article itself also needs a rationale template added? Epachamo (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- The way you added a rationale for the article about the book you created is OK, but you unintentionally replaced the one for the Benson article. So, now the use in the Benson article also fails WP:NFCC#10c and will be tagged for removal by a bot from the Benson article. The file will not be deleted per WP:F5 because it will still be being used in the article about the book. If this is an acceptable outcome to you, then that's fine; however, if you or anyone else still feels the file can be used in both the Benson article and the book article, then a rationale needs to be re-added for the Benson article. FWIW, as I posted above, I think using a non-free book cover for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book in question; so, I think that usage does comply with policy and see no reason why it cannot be used in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am fine with deletion from the Benson article at this point and keeping it just in the Book Article. Thanks for the mentorship Marchjuly navigating me through this process. Epachamo (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- The way you added a rationale for the article about the book you created is OK, but you unintentionally replaced the one for the Benson article. So, now the use in the Benson article also fails WP:NFCC#10c and will be tagged for removal by a bot from the Benson article. The file will not be deleted per WP:F5 because it will still be being used in the article about the book. If this is an acceptable outcome to you, then that's fine; however, if you or anyone else still feels the file can be used in both the Benson article and the book article, then a rationale needs to be re-added for the Benson article. FWIW, as I posted above, I think using a non-free book cover for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book in question; so, I think that usage does comply with policy and see no reason why it cannot be used in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I updated the rationale on the image to have it point to the book article. I assume that is what you meant? Are you saying the Book Article itself also needs a rationale template added? Epachamo (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2020 (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 discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
- 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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- File:Dave Brown Rugby League 1979.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Florrie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused, and the licenses on the file have been in question for almost 6 years and have not been verified and/or corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The information template suggests that this is Dave Brown (rugby league, born 1957), who was born in 1957. Furthermore, the filename suggests that the photograph was taken in 1979. However, the copyright tag used, {{PD-Australia}}, can only be used for photographs taken before 1955, and this photograph clearly doesn't satisfy this requirement. Also, the source URL is dead and so the source can't be verified. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2020 (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.