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.
No source given. The uploader previously uploaded a file, Image:RAY Pick-001.jpg, of Comfort, which also didn't have a source. This is probably copyright infringement. TheAEtalk/sign 04:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CV. Ejfetters (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (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.
Chupacabras portoricensis.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.
copyvio; signed image, no evidence of release into public domain, whole image used, non-valid fair use rationale DavidOaks (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet fair-use. TheAEtalk/sign 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (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.
MysteryCreature (Chupacabra).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.
As the image above, copyvio; signed image, no evidence of release into public domain, whole image used, non-valid fair use rationale. There is a claim that the image is from KTVT which most likely does not own the copyright to the same since in the following website: Video Spider it is clear that the image was Copyrighted in 2005 by CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and therefore it is a blantant copyright violation by the uploader. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, if the story/video was allegedly copyrighted in 2005, then why does the image have a big /08/2008 date stamp in the upper left hand corner?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The story was filed on August 12th, 2008 3:31 PM CT, and the Dewitt County Sheriff's Office Video has a date stamp of 08/08/2008. KTVT is also an affiliate of CBS. Wikipedia:Verifiability policies and Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines justify the appropriate citations in boilerplate. User:Marine 69-71 is mistaking website copyright (which changes every year to keep copyrights current) for his deletion nomination argument (e.g. This is why we don't cite a book or magazine articles latest edition printing date, merely it's copyright status at time of first printing). Speedy Keep due to amount of evidence trumping deletion nominators claims.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#10a unless the copyright holder is properly attributed. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The provenance and sources is all there on the boilerplates. I don't see any problems with it. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly who owns the copyright? Stifle (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the boilerplate does not tell us who owns the copyrights of the image. There is no proof that the owner and copyright holder of the image has released the image to Public Domain. If there is, then provide it and the issue will be settled. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2009 (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.
12thManStatue.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 - image fails WP:NFCC#8. While critical commentary is not explicitly required, its lack requires those seeking to keep images to show how the image meets this requirement both here and on the image page, rather than reasserting that it does - Peripitus(Talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This statue is at the center of the plaza to enter the stadium. It is the figure of an important person in Texas A&M's past and what it represents figures prominently in traditions at the stadium. Additionally, knowing what the statue and the person looks like is important. It's certainly encyclopedic and FURs are applied appropriately. It clearly meets the criteria stated on the image page "It is believed that the use of a picture...to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question [is an appropriate application of Fair Use for Wikipedia]." As for its use in the 12th Man article, he was the original 12th man. Having an image of the statue dedicated in his honor is apropos. — BQZip01 —talk 08:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely remove from 12th man (football) as decorative use only. The rationale is insufficient for the other two uses, so delete altogether unless it is improved. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be decorative as it is about the subject of the statue? I could have been more specific, but the description on the 12th Man page is an expansion to the description on the Texas A&M page. — BQZip01 —talk 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The statue is an important representation of something very much a part of the university and the football program. Honestly, anyone who thinks otherwise has never really done research on A&M. It just makes no sense to remove it. Brianreading (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original DFU: Not one of the articles where this image is used has any critical commentary about this statue itself. It is used merely for decoration and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the articles; it thus fails WP:NFCC#8 in all articles where it is used. —Angr 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical commentary" is not part of WP:NFCC and, thus, is not a requirement for inclusion. It is not merely for decoration as it serves to identify the impact of the original 12th man. There are some things that words cannot say that images much more clearly show. — BQZip01 —talk 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freedom of Panorama. Ejfetters (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid. FOP applies only to buildings in the USA, not to sculptures or works of art. Stifle (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (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.
Eyebrowsadvert.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 as failing NFCC#8 and 1 - Peripitus(Talk) 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image, taken from a BBC News article, does not significantly increase any understanding of the article it appears in. It simply shows two children - a sight that most readers will be familiar with. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It isn't a special or unique informative image. --Artene50 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image is a still from the beginning of the advertisement that is the subject of the article. While pictures of two children are common, this is a picture of the two children in the advertisement. A picture of two random children who were not in the advertisement would not be an appropriate substitute. The image added a great deal to my understanding of the article. Crypticfirefly (talk)
The "thing" about the advert appears to be moving eyebrows. This simply shows two children - can you explain what you understood after seing the image that you did not understand before? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a delete. The advert is one of the most annoying that I have ever had the misfortune to see, but that isn't coming into my consideration. The image fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable by the free text "the advert depicted a boy and a girl sitting in front of a grey backdrop". Stifle (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Replacing it with text does not really give a feel for what the image looks like. Charvest (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But under the non-free content criteria, using copyrighted content is only justified when: (1)The image cannot be replaced by words - and I think that this, just two kids with neutral facial expressions and a grey backdrop - can... and (2)That the image increases a reader's understanding. How does seeing two children mean that the reader understands the advert more? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you haven't seen the advert this image doesn't significantly help to understand the article. There are external links which show the advert, which are more useful. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree-- seeing the picture in the article reminded me that I had seen the ad. As for the external links, they are not necessarily going to be stable over time. Will those links still be there ten years from now? If not, then the picture will be much more useful. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many articles on Wikipedia describing adverts, music videos, films etc. do not display any image at all, which leaves the text alone to describe what is a visual medium. Therefore, the image provides the user a visual reference which they can then use in further research of the material. This dispute is rooted in what appears to be a misunderstanding of the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.76.185 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC) — 90.212.76.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Cooltext80980299.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.
Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. JaGatalk 09:24, 1 March 2009 (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.
Jason Barlowe 01.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.
Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. JaGatalk 09:25, 1 March 2009 (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.
Me12.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.
Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. JaGatalk 09:27, 1 March 2009 (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.
Megan V copy.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.
Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. JaGatalk 09:27, 1 March 2009 (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.
MarkReckless2008.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 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.
2009-02-27-michelleobama.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.
Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. Jason (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per I8. A high quality version of the image exists on Commons. Also, please have another uninvolved administrator look at the image and determine whether the image is right for this project, instead of the reviewing administrator who is revert warring on the picture. miranda 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reviewing administrator reccomended using the Ffd template, if needed, on the talk page of the image. Jason (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say delete on this one because higher quality versions of the same photo exist on Commons, and this image is also blocking one of them. I also agree that it would be improper to speedy this, because despite that the file on Commons is obviously of the same shot, it doesn't fit I8 as a bit-for-bit. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SchuminWeb Ejfetters (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2009 (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.
From_roslyn_over_bridge.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 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.
StockwellSkatepark.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 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.
Scooter_and_PSU_Shark.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.
Unused personal "GFDL presumed" image. Sherool(talk) 13:32, 1 March 2009 (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.
Terraposter08.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.
Unencyclopedic; article has newer poster to serve as "cover art", and no commentary exists to warrant a second poster image. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:46, 1 March 2009 (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.
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 Jonathunder (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I relist this file according to the Deletion Review. This file is OR/OI and supported by no sources despite what is said in the file summary : the file contains anachronisms (Armenian-Georgian border is the modern one (not the 1918-1920 one(s)), city names were not written like that at that period,... not only the fact that the alphabet used did not exist, but some places did not exist either, see here VartanM's reply about that) which makes it impossible for the file to be supported by reliable sources. Moreover, the file cannot be fixed without being deleted: if it is fixed, it becomes a derivative work based on unfree sources, which raises a copyright issue: if it's a derivative work without originality, there's a breach of copyright. Sardur (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] New element: Copyright violation of this map (see here for the copyright). Sardur (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LYCOS Webhosting has ceased operation, so that website is no longer online. The copyright violation allegation is still valid of course, but we have no way of seeing it for ourselves. You didn't happen to make a screen shot of it? Meowy 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saved the entire cached version of the page. Here is a screenshot of the relevant portion : File:Cache Azerland.jpg. Sardur (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um...two wrongs don't make a right. Recommending speedy delete of this recently uploaded image as it has clearly been uploaded under false pretenses. — BQZip01 —talk 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP has lots of maps that contain cities/places written in anachronistic or transliterated ways, if that were a reason to delete, nearly all foreign maps would be deletable in the nominator's view. Typical straw man argument by someone who really wants this gone because HEDOESNTLIKEIT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it really seems to me you didn't get my "view". Sardur (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your view as stated is that "the file contains anachronisms" such as "city names were not written like that at that period" and "that the alphabet used did not exist" (your emphasis). These faults are common to most Englishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_1&action=edit§ion=17 maps and maps of ancient places: do you think that any Russian map of Russia would have "Moscow" on it or any non-Cyrillic characters like this? or of Armenia with "Mediterranean Sea", "Black Sea" or any Latin characters on it like this? or that an ancient map of the Eastern Roman Empire have "Milan" and "Athens" and "Visigoths" on it like this one? So, you can see- that at least one of the bases on whicn you have advocated deleting this file is sooooo off whack that one can only wonder why you advocated it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, you didn't get it; perhaps I'm not clear enough: on your maps, you have for instance Constantinople, not Istanbul, or Melitene, not Malatya, etc. Sardur (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instabul was Constantinople... My point is that there may be more than one name for a city. Even New York was once New Amsterdam. That doesn't make the map incorrect. It also doesn't mean that a name can't easily be changed or another name for it (like the modern/historical name) in parenthesis. — BQZip01 —talk 00:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Instabul was Constantinople": do you realise that this is about a map of 480 AD? Sorry, but that's ririculous. Sardur (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? I thought we were talking about 1918-1920. I'm confused? My comment was an attempt at levity and to bring a little perspective to the situation. — BQZip01 —talk 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're confused: we were making comparison. Sardur (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We have already been thru this twice, what's the point in the third voting on this map? It is a historically accurate map, supported by many reliable sources such as these: [1][2][3]. The argument about the alphabet makes no sense whatsoever, we do not write the names in Ancient Egyptian on the modern maps of the ancient Egypt. And this map is Baku87's own work, and as such it cannot have any copyright issues. All the maps used in wikipedia are based on some source, in that case we should delete them all. The creator is willing to fix any inaccuracies if they are pointed out, however instead of discussing the perceived problems with the creator the map is being listed for yet another voting. VartanM's argument about Khankendi is not accurate, Khankendi was the historical name of Stepanakert, at that time it was a small settlement. It was renamed after the Armenian Bolshevik Stepan Shahumian in 1923. In sum, no valid reason for deletion has been provided. Grandmaster 06:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point? 1) see the link to the closing of the delrev 2) there's a new element. Sardur (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmaster's logical reasoning. --Artene50 (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is hardly a new element. Citing unfree sources via proper attribution is not a copyright breach, it's a well-known issue. The 'derivative work without originality' is not a correct term here. brandспойт 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link to azerland.com (i.e. to an identical map under copyright) was not made before, this is the new element. Sardur (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just base on which a free version was drawn, I guess. brandспойт 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About copyright, one cannot guess, one has to be sure. Sardur (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How funny that the link to azerland.com that I indicated above and showing the copyright violation is not available anymore. Assuming good faith, I will make no accusation. Anyway, here's a cached version. In any case, my other arguments still stand despite Grandmaster's and Brandmeister's answers: if Baku87's map is an own work, then it's not supported by sources and it's OR/OI; if it is, the three above-mentioned sources are not free. OR/OI or copyright, you have to choose. Grandmaster's answer with regards to names, comparing the situation with Ancient Egypt, is not relevant: I'm not saying that names should be written in a different alphabet but in latin alphabet, and not according to the special azerbaijani spelling which was not in use in 1918-1920 (thus for instance Gäncä should be written Ganja). Khankendi: Grandmaster's argument about Khankendi was beaten to death in prior discussions. There was several villages there, only one Muslim, it's a recent invention that Stepanakert had any prior name, because the city is a modern creation. In fact all the original maps made by Azerbaijan at that time, all only place Shushi in present day Nagorno-Karabagh. Sardur (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my argument about Stepanakert was "beaten to death". It is a general knowledge that Stepanakert was a village called Khankendi, before it was renamed after Stepan Shahumian in 1923. You can read about that in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [4] Your claim that there were several villages there is just an OR. The map is supported by numerous third party sources, and the claim about alphabet is irrelevant. It is the modern map, and it can use any alphabet, as it is intended for the modern reader. Grandmaster 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course... Will you be so kind to explain why neither Khankendi nor Stepanakert appear on any of the three "sources" mentioned in the file summary? "It is the modern map"? I thought it was a map of ADR 1918-1920. Your answer makes it more and more OR, if it was not for the fact that Khankendi appears on the azerland map too, which is confirming the copyright violation. Sardur (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why is it a problem? I don't see that showing this settlement on the map somehow hurts the quality of the map. If you want Khankendi removed from the map, you can ask the creator to do so. I don't think such minor issues should be a reason for deletion. Grandmaster 07:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First that's not the only issue, second it's not a minor one as you perfectly know, and third you didn't answer to my question. As for the creator, he's aware of this discussion and of other anachronic issues, such as the Armenian-Georgian border, still unadressed. Sardur (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmaster. --Baki66 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not linked to any article, and it is an inaccurate, amateurish invention. I did an image search using tineye.com. The map uploaded by Baku87 appears to be based entirely on a map representing present-day Azerbaijan. The largest resolution tineye found of the original map was 373x400, on this site - http://www.geocities.co.jp/SilkRoad-Lake/2917/ussr/nagornokarabagh.html. The map closest in size to the Baku87 map in size is a public domain 328x352 pixel one found on many sites, including Wikipedia commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijan-CIA_WFB_Map.png. The 326x350 map made by Baku87 looks to be a slightly altered copy of that map. The two pixel difference in the Baku87 map is accounted for by the cropping of the black border of the original map. The very small difference between Baku87's map purporting to show Azerbaijan in 1918 and the near identical map of modern Azerbaijan should indicate that Baku87's map has no standing. The screencapture by Sardur would also seem to suggest that the map is the work of a third-party, not Baku87. Meowy 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is the quality of the image, it can be improved. Otherwise, the sources have been provided, and the map is not an OR. Grandmaster 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map is OR. What it shows is an invented fabrication, but it is still OR. Baku87 (or whoever created the map) just took the PD map showing modern Azerbaijan and erased the eastern border of Armenia. You can tell it was specificically that map he used by looking at the word Naxcivan - on Baku87's map it looks like "Naxciyan" because the "v" still has part of the erased border attached to it. Meowy 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His map was not created by him, see what was provided by Meowy, it was a CIA prepared map according to this of the current borders. Baku87's map is at best an alteration of an existing map originally created to represent the current borders. The cached page message shows that the site alleges those to be the current borders. Your claim does not make sense, as the map was even not meant to represent what was claimed by Baku87. Sardur (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And if you seek to remove that one, then why not also remove this map? Atabəy (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because this second one is based on a reliable source and is allowed (OTRS) to do so? Off-topic justification in any case. Sardur (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map that you listed for deletion is also based on reliable sources. Grandmaster 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, as explained above, and this one doesn't have a copyright issue. Sardur (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to offical map of ADR Foreign Ministry. Ateshi-Baghavan 06:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Sardur. Various copyright and OR issues. Likely to remain orphaned.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is orphaned is because it was removed by the person arguing for its deletion: [5]. Merely being orphaned doesn't mean it won't ever be used; it's certainly encyclopedic. — BQZip01 —talk 03:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sardur, map based on no reliable sources, just fantasies--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no doubt that this place existed and that its borders were somewhat fluid or not necessarily officially recognized. But there has been no convincing evidence that this map fails to meet the includability guidelines. I find it exceptional that this map - which seems more than loosely based on the public domain CIA maps seen all over WP, has been claimed to be copyright violation of some non-visible pages by an editor whose POV is quite well established. This wikilawyering alone would lead me in a close case - which this really isn't - to lean toward keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above images on Azeri Wikipedia, which are even more egregious and do even more violence to cartography, is precisely why Baku87's map is discredited. Maps like these have to be locked up in a filing cabinet in the mythology department.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Azerbaijani-language Wikipedia is notorious and is mostly a work of propaganda. Carlossuarez46, you do yourself no favours by citing it. Meowy 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given my contributions here and the fact that I never pleaded a PoV issue about this map (though I think there's also one), this is really amazing to hear this accusation, and from an admin. Sardur (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no conclusion on the debate, while Sardur is already removing the map [6]. So typical of AA POV troubles in Wikipedia... Atabəy (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precautionary principle has nothing to do with PoV. Sardur (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I normally stay out of nationalistic discussions like this one, but the map seems fine. It may have a few errors, but those can be fixed. Just because someone else used a PD image to make a similar map (or for that matter the same map) doesn't make this one copyrighted. Again, the person offered to make changes to any errors, but there is no evidence of a violation of copyright, no evidence of OR, and any other reason for deletion, IMHO. — BQZip01 —talk 02:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not raise any alarm bells that this map has absolutely no sources and is essentially an irredentist policy adopted by current republic of Azerbaijan? I'm sorry, but if you are unaware of the current dispute between the Armenian-Azerbaijani historical conflict, you're not in a position to vote on the validity and veracity of this map.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. As a wikipedian in good standing with the project, I am perfectly capable of making a reasoned decision about the validity of keeping this image. The image, if there are any errors, can be fixed and the author has stated he will do so (apparently). I have no idea what an "irredentist policy" is nor the "day republic of Azerbaijan". Merely that there is dispute on where borders were doesn't mean that the map should be deleted. There seem to be several sources listed on the image page. Furthermore, your "new element" is a copyright violation, of which there is no clear evidence that this is a copyvio (on top of that, your upload of a copyrighted image to prove your point is, to say the least, awkward). — BQZip01 —talk 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, not having all the evidence at hand for such a complex issue does not permit you to come and start making ad hoc and poorly informed conclusions. The same author who uploaded this map added its identical copy on an article about an earthquake that hit Azerbaijan in the year 2000. It's naive to expect any modifications to come from an author who is deliberately embellishing internationally recognized borders. Imagine for a second that there was no such thing as an internationally recognized borders. You claim there is no evidence of copyvio, but there was one prior to when the irredentist website was shot down just after it was reported. But you can have the essential from this other irredentist website prepared, by the late president (more like dictator) Heydar Aliyev foundation. We are voting on a map, not what it might become. We have, on the other hand, uploaded a map created by a reliable historian and cartographer named Robert Hewsen, which both sides have used countless times in Wikipedia articles in the past.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an issue with a user, this is the wrong place for it. Might I suggest WP:CCN for such a problem rather than this venue. That some of the borders are in dispute is an encyclopedic manner and, even if someone notable (like a prior dictator, late president, or whatever) claimed it and it is proven demonstrably wrong, it can still serve as an illustrative use, and thus should be kept. There are scores of unverifiable, dubious claims made by individuals that are notable. An example: Kim Jong Il's page states accurately that "Kim routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one per round," while playing golf. A picture of him playing golf would be applicable.
This is a discussion regarding keeping this image, not its applicability in a specific article. That discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, WP:CCN, WP:RfC, or WP:ARBCOM, but I recommend following the WP:DR process. If you need assistance in finding the appropriate venue, I'd be happy to help. — BQZip01 —talk 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anachronic Armenian-Georgian border has been mentioned since the delrev, nobody has answered to that, even not the creator who had the time to fix it. I still don't know why Khankendi is on the map, while no contemporary map has it, etc. That's for the OR issue. Sardur (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I still haven't seen a source showing clearly that these exact borders were claimed by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918-1920 (it also had claims on Russia and Georgia). Sardur (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These maps appear to coincide pretty closely to the sources shown on the image page. Realize there were errors back then (even in the U.S. which was beginning to take the lead in cartography) and simple mistakes in cartography did occur. It may also be that multiple countries claimed the same lands, but that neither really cared enough to go to war over a desert that no one lived in. — BQZip01 —talk 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, contemporary maps or even maps in the three "sources" do not make the mistake about the Armenian-Georgian border. Sardur (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Armenian-Georgian border is an issue, just ask the creator to fix it. He will be glad to do that, he has been cooperative so far. Minor errors (if there are any) are not a reason for deletion of the entire map. To me it looks like another pretext to have this map deleted. Grandmaster 05:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been raised at the very beginning of the delrev and again of this FfD, and Baku87 has been informed of both. Sardur (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you discussed this directly with the map creator? Grandmaster 07:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like to repeat yourself, but I can do it as well: Baku87 has been informed of both. Also, as you will remember, I raised both the Armenian-Turkish border and the Armenian-Georgian border issues at the same time. Baku87 changed the first one, not the second one, and never provided an answer. Sardur (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright issue? An almost identical map was displayed on a website claiming copyright, and it's not copyrighted? Could you explain that to me? Sardur (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. You haven't provided anything which shows this website claims copyright of said image, only a screenshot which contains only a partial view of this image. If anything, it appears that the images shown on the website are a cropped version of the image in question here and images taken from two books. That would make the website image a derivative of this one, not the other way around and a copyright violation of the other two images. Websites claiming copyright may not have the right to do so. Lastly, without access to the webpage in question, there is no way to verify your claims. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that there is no way to directly verify your claim. — BQZip01 —talk 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. I can provide a screenshot of the lower part of the page, or even better I can send through e-mail the offline version of the page that I saved, without any problem. Moreover, the image here before its last modification was exactly the same as the website image, so the image here (as it is now) is a very close derivative of the website one. Sardur (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip01, little of what you have written here makes sense, and the little that does is contradictory. First you wrote "Recommending speedy delete of this recently uploaded image as it has clearly been uploaded under false pretenses", now you are writing "Keep. I normally stay out of nationalistic discussions like this one, but the map seems fine"! Didn't you bother reading what has been written by others? I HAD ALREADY PROVED, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, that the map is just a slightly altered version of the public-domain map on Wikipedia that shows the region's current borders. Quote: "The 326x350 map made by Baku87 looks to be a slightly altered copy of that map. The two pixel difference in the Baku87 map is accounted for by the cropping of the black border of the original map" and "Baku87 just took the PD map showing modern Azerbaijan and erased the eastern border of Armenia. You can tell it was specifically that map he used by looking at the word Naxcivan - on Baku87's map it looks like "Naxciyan" because the "v" still has part of the erased border attached to it". Your comments like "There seem to be several sources listed on the image page", "Realize there were errors back then", and "simple mistakes in cartography did occur" are bizarre, almost comical. What "sources"? There are no sources. The "back then" is only a matter of months, when Baku87 (or someone else) maliciously altered that modern map to invent borders that did not exist in 1918. Meowy 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking multiple statements out of context
"Recommending speedy delete of this recently uploaded image..." refers to File:Cache Azerland.jpg which is, by the uploader's admission, a copyrighted image. It was inappropriately uploaded as it does not have an appropriate use within Wikipedia in accordance with WP:NFCC; ergo it should be removed ASAP. "Keep" refers to the primary image in question.
The image primarily in question, is indeed "...is just a slightly altered version of the public-domain map on Wikipedia that shows the region's current borders..." It is an alteration of a PD image and, thus, is not a copyright violation negating the rationale for an additional WP:IfD listing.
There are three sources listed on the image's image page and this map appears to match those quite closely.
"Realize there were errors back then", and "simple mistakes in cartography did occur" refer to the capabilities of cartography in 1918/1920, not today. My point is that if the border is drawn somewhat in error, the border may not have been well-defined in the first place.
Then I think you owe Sardur an apology, there was no "false pretense" involved in its (File:Cache Azerland.jpg) uploading - it was uploaded for the purpose of illustrating a specific and a valid point and it was an image that was requested by me. Also, There are NO sources for the Baku87 map other than the map it is based on, the map that shows the present-day borders. Either you are incapable of understanding the concept of editing an image, or you have decided to conciously ignore it for POV reasons. The altered map is OR, it is OR by virtue of its being altered. The borders have not been "drawn somewhat in error" - what the map shows is a deliberate lie. There is no "cartography from 1918/1920" being discussed in this thread, the "cartography" is all from November 2008. Meowy 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't apologize because the tag stated that the image would be used in an article when it definitely wasn't. The same image could be hosted elsewhere to show the same point. I stated that borders from that era are generally not as well-defined as they are now. The Baku87 map has 3 sources listed on the image page and they all seem to show about the same borders. Even if this is a lie, some lies (i.e. chemtrails) have their place in Wikipedia. In short, the image used on the article should be discussed elsewhere, but this image should stay. — BQZip01 —talk 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't say anything about an error in the tag before, tagging errors can be corrected - you claimed that the image itself had been "clearly been uploaded under false pretenses" which it clearly had not. The three "sources" do not support the Baku87 map. One is completely off-topic, showing an entirely different thing. The other two show what is called an "Official map of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1920" - i.e. they show the territory claimed by Azerbaijan, which contained territory that was also claimed by Georgia and Armenia. In a properly-written article there would be content reflecting that reality - there is no such subtlety or nuances reflected in the Baku87 map or its title because it is a ham-fisted POV creation. To some extent, this discussion is pointless, Wikipedia is not meant to be a depository of orphaned images and the Baku87 map will never be used in an article, so it will be erased eventually. Meowy 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You didn't say anything about an error in the tag before..." I stated it quite clearly on the page before it was deleted. If you upload a copyrighted image and state that it is going to be used in an article under certain "fair use" guidelines but intentionally do something contrary and have no intention of using it in an article, it was uploaded under false pretenses. You are correct in stating that tags can be changed, but no tag or criteria under WP:NFCC supports such usage in Wikipedia.
"The three "sources" do not support the Baku87 map. One is completely off-topic, showing an entirely different thing. The other two show what is called an "Official map of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1920" - i.e. they show the territory claimed by Azerbaijan, which contained territory that was also claimed by Georgia and Armenia." All three show, essentially, the same map: [7], [8], [9]. The last one shows only the basic delineations of the southern border, but it is still appropriate to include the image as a source if it was used; it is not "completely off topic".
"In a properly-written article there would be content reflecting that reality..." As I've stated before, that is an issue with the article, not the image. This timeframe is fraught with instances of more than one country claiming the same territory. To reflect their claims, this map is entirely appropriate.
"...there is no such subtlety or nuances reflected in the Baku87 map or its title because it is a ham-fisted POV creation." Again, that is something that could easily be changed and is not a reason for deletion.
"To some extent, this discussion is pointless, Wikipedia is not meant to be a depository of orphaned images and the Baku87 map will never be used in an article, so it will be erased eventually." That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. — BQZip01 —talk 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip01 keeps saying there are sources that more or less show the same borders as this map. Where are they? The links posted on the image page show maps with barely discernible and fuzzy delineations. One of them clearly states that the map is the official map of ADR. So then shouldn't this image state the fact that it merely displays territories claimed by ADR ?--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"BQZip01 keeps saying there are sources that more or less show the same borders as this map. Where are they? The links posted on the image page show maps with barely discernible and fuzzy delineations." I disagree. The basic alignment of the source images lines up with the image in question. See above for links to these images. While they could be a little clearer, they are certainly accurate enough.
"One of them clearly states that the map is the official map of ADR. So then shouldn't this image state the fact that it merely displays territories claimed by ADR?" I would say no, because it is only one source. The other sources don't state that it is an "official publication"; to add such a tag to it would be misleading as two sources do not make such a claim. — BQZip01 —talk 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: It's also inexcusable that Carlossuarez46 as an admin does not understand policy nor what were the arguments provided before he decided to answer with nothing more than nonsense. This is English Wikipedia, and one can understand why maps will be written in English. The comments about 'anachronism' refers to entities which did not exist and the example was Stepanakert as well as the borders. And his assumptions with the POV is quite well established, as if Sardur might have lied about a site witnessed by several editors, before it was mysteriously shot down a few hours after Sardur brought it up. From the same rational any map could be kept, just claiming some entity did exist. And the claim that the map can be fixed when no attempt was done to fix it and in spite of the fact that POV pushers (for the lack of better words) still maintain that the map is supported by credible sources when the only maps coming close to it were those claims made by Azerbaijan in 1918-20. Fixing something which those wanting to keep find it as being accurate? Give me a break, another form of revert war will follow. In fact, the two references provided by Grandmaster to support the map, were referred to the claims made by AzDR (and this is even shown in the sources, that it was the borders as claimed by AzDR), for those reasons they are considered as primary sources, and biased at that.
What's next Carlossuarez46? Adding the maps of ArDR too under the same pretexts? Wikipedia maps should be based on secondary sources, particularly when the primary source has all the reasons to be biased and the only secondary source maps provided were those which dismiss the map. Those are The National Geographic (which visited ArDR at the time), Hewsen, Andersen, Tsutsiev etc. All those sources are notable and credible secondary source. And if the closing admin has doubts about if this map should be deleted, be sure that this map will remain orphaned because this is a fabrication. The fact that Carlossuarez46 finds nothing wrong in taking a modern map, with all the current borders and entities to then modify one border is what is really problematic. Because for a reasonable editor, doing that is OR, particularly when from the cached version you see this map was meant to represent the current borders. That's all I had to say about this. - Fedayee (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the personal attack, as you are an admitted follower of an irredentist movement trying to establish a Greater Armenia, it's little wonder that you want this map gone. Your deletion comment is exemplary of the delete sentiment here: If you don't like the map because you are an Armenian nationalist, go ahead and attack everyone else. I have no bias between Armenia and Azerbaijan - I have added numerous articles to both wikiprojects' purviews. If you could step back a minute and look logically and dispassionately, you'd see that your stridency conincides with the vacuity of your arguments. As for what's next, you may end up with a topic ban if you keep pushing your POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who does not have any bias, you of course had no problem submitting for deletion one of the most known Armenian films soon after the page was created, and which you did not even bother checking on Google books to find out there are dozens of books referring to it (that's basically the same editor who wants to keep a map which it was documented was initially built to represent the current borders). And your assumptions of bad faith are starting to reach personal attacks proposition. I don't think anyone forgot those following remarks you directed against another user under the same false impressions: Or is this the latest Meowy effort to push his POV in the various conflicts between Armenia and its neighbors., an accusation against a user who is neither Armenian nor Azeri to begin with. Your allegations regarding alleged motives of users need to be addressed. Because for your information, while I do believe the Treaty of Sevres should be ratified, I can differentiate between what I want and what it is (unlike Baku87). And I don't give anyone the right to discredit me (the way your are doing) based on such beliefs, which are personal. And someone with such bad faith assumptions and baseless allegations is in no position to endorse any topic ban against me not even making threats. The fact remains that your explanations were non-sense, and I have directly addressed how they are nonsense, you did not even bother replying to those arguments, but addressed the person rather. - Fedayee (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Fedayee - I don't care whether you or Meowy is or isn't Armenian, Azeri, or Martian. Meowy is on revert probation because of POV pushing in the AA arbcom ruling. No one cares whether he is Armenian pushing Armenian POV or an Azeri provocateur pushing Armenian POV. Ditto, you. Your ethnicity is irrelevant - your comments have been refuted and the deleters cannot even get their story straight: 1) it's a copyvio and 2) it's made up by the uploader, hence it's OR? If it's plagiarism/copyvio then someone else has made it up not the uploader who has been accused. Since you seem to have access to special information, point us to some sources that show what you claim are the actual borders of the ADR? And as for nominating something for deletion: "Nahapet is a 1977 Armenian film about a man who tries to rebuild his life after losing his wife and child in the Armenian genocide." was the entire contents of that article - if you think that nominating such one liners shows bias, you're on another planet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and the deleters cannot even get their story straight": it's now obvious that you have difficulties to follow the discussion. Sardur (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your dirt throwing against other members can not be left unanswered: Meowy is on revert probation because of POV pushing in the AA arbcom ruling. Meowy was never placed on probation for any such reasons. He was pushed in that restriction for a comment in an article which was outside of the AA scope, then reported for an article related to AA because of the 1RR which he acquired because of that. My comments have been refuted? I don't see anyone addressing my replies, and having to endure your foul mouthing and slandering instead. Your arguments regarding Nahapet are very laughable, this coming from a user who creates like a bot thousands of articles of one line and which are nearly unexpandable and can't comprehend what an encyclopedia is. It's a given that you have been more harmful to the project than the members you slander. The evidence was already provided that it was based on a modern map, and that that map was altered. Meowy provided evidences, Sardur even provided the CIA link with the original. There is no secret information as you claim. Funny that Grandmaster discredits Andersen map, and who has gone on a rampage in the past to have all Andersen maps deleted and he is here now voting to keep a fabricated map. Even more disturbing is the way both Atabek and Grandmaster have attempted to harm Andersen's credibility, for a map, which original author is not even him but which was drawn from David Marshall Lang from the work Independent Georgia 1918-1921. Altering a map representing the current borders by definition is OR, this alone should suffice for those who understand policies. But Wikipedia seems to be better served for those who don't give a damn about content. Consider this as a last reply, we're in the stage of soapboxing. - Fedayee (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised parts of Iran weren't included on the map. Carlos, that film article could have been expanded and you know it. Did you not also create numerous stubs for settlements and villages, some of which are now uninhabited, hoping that someone would add something to those articles? TA-ME (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of Iran are included on the map. I'm confused... — BQZip01 —talk 14:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (yes, again, sorry). We won't settle anything by opposing PoV to PoV, and nobody needs to: thanks to Meowy and BQZip01, the basis of Baku87's map is now clear, that's the CIA map, altered by the change of borders, thus OR compared to this CIA map; this change therefore needs a source. Some have (at least implicitly) claimed that this change is supported by the three sources mentioned in the map summary. This being true or not is ultimately of no importance: either Baku87's resulting map matches the three sources, which are not free, and therefore there's a copyright problem, or it matches them closely / a lot / a bit / not at all, and there's an OR problem again. I very honnestly don't see how Baku87's map could avoid the copyright problem without being original. Maybe I err, but as of today, nobody explained me why. Sardur (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there's a copyright issue; seeing three old maps and drawing something based on those does not mean you have violated their copyright. --Golbez (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, but how do you know that the three maps are old? They all pretend to be officially prepared by the ADR (which one I still haven't seen) but they are not the same. Creativity is therefore present, justifying the copyright. Sardur (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the correct copyright issue, Golbez. The map is an altered version of a map that is in the public domain, so if whoever altered it placed the altered map into the public domain then there is no copyright issue. But, as brought up by Sardur at the top of this discussion, there is some doubt that Baku87 is the person who altered the map - the same map had appeared on another website. If Baku87 didn't create the map, he has no control over its copyright. Meowy 03:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because of copyright, or nationalism, or anything. Because it's ugly. It's a bad edit of a modern map, and the issue is far better illustrated (and all of the nuances captured) by File:AzerbaijanDemocraticRepublicMap.png. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map you refer to does not better illustrate the issue. It is a different map, plus it is not based on any reliable sources. It is made by some Andrew Andersen, who is not a published scholar. The quality of the map in question could be improved. If the quality is an issue, I will ask a more skilled person to improve the map by Baku87. I don't think it should be a reason for deletion. Grandmaster 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the image by Andersen still contradicts this map of Armenia: File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif It shows Nakhchivan as part of Armenia, while Andersen shows it as a disputed territory. We have to admit that there are conflicting maps on the borders of states in 1918 - 1920. So there's no point in deleting one scholarly opinion (the map proposed for deletion) and keeping the other (the map used in the article about Democratic Republic of Armenia), i.e. just the one that suits the POV of a certain group of users here. It will be suppressing of sourced info, which is not in line with the rules that hold that all notable scholarly opinions should be represented. Grandmaster 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The map has factual basis. It is based on existing sources. I do not see any problem with it, and honestly, this is getting old. Parishan (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This particular image is ideal for Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#Territorial_disputes with the caption "Territories claimed by Azerbaijan c. 1918-1920", thus it has an encyclopedic usage. — BQZip01 —talk 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And on what knowledge do you base that opinion on, BQZip01? Your ignorance of this entire issue is breathtaking, almost as breathtaking as having the audacity to express strong opinions on an issue you know nothing about. The map is completely unsuitable. You haven't a clue about this subject - the territorial claims of Azerbaijan extended all the way to the Black Sea, including vast areas of what is now Armenia, Georgia, and Turkey. Meowy 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you mind WP:NPA and WP:Civil? Attacking someone just because he happened to disagree with you is no good. And who says that "territorial claims of Azerbaijan extended all the way to the Black Sea"? You made that claim repeatedly, but never provided any source to support it. Grandmaster 06:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true; perhaps you haven't seen it, but Marshall Bagramyan did provide a source during the delrev: Richard G. Hovannisian's article "The Republic of Armenia" in The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century on page 317. Sardur (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the maps on p237 of Hewsen's "Armenia, an Historical Atlas" - I've already cited them in another discussion (might have been in the previous discussion about deleting this map) in which Grandmaster took part in. The page contains 3 maps showing the various overlapping territorial claims made by Georgia. Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The one for Azerbaijan shows a vast area, extending to the Black Sea, in which Armenia is reduced to about the size of present-day Nakhchivan and is surrounded by Azeri territory. Azerbaijan supported this claim by financing, arming, and organising the forces of the South West Caucasian Government. But this discussion is getting nowhere. The basic fact is that Baku87s map is never going to be used within any article, let's settle for that. Probably there will need to be continued discussion on article talk pages to be certain of that, but at least BQZip01 would not be able to take part in such discussions because he would be completely out of his depth. Meowy 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing my opinion on the facts presented. In this case, 3 different images from three different sources purport to show territorial claims from approximately 1918-1920. This doesn't mean they are 100% accurate and that, if there is a minor error, that it can't be fixed, but they are the basis for the image in question. This doesn't mean they don't have other claims or that these claims currently represent anything accurately today other than what is included in these sources.
This image and this discussion are not about the political views of a user or the opposing view. In this case, the image in question appears to be a variation of a Public Domain image and its status as to whether it is copyrighted or otherwise (if it is PD, which I believe it to be, then there is no copyright violation).
Please tone it down a little. WP:NPA. I know enough about the issue to make a judgement on the use of this image in Wikipedia. Even if it is wrong and these books and associated images are the political tool of some ousted leader, it still has a use (to accurately show those views). It doesn't mean they are correct. It doesn't mean that parts of Georgia, Armenia, and/or Turkey should/shouldn't be part of Azerbaijan or vice versa.
Direct support? what direct support?? How can three (diverging, on top) sources "directly support" a map that they contradict on several points (see above)? Sardur (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific, but what points are not supported (I'm sorry, but "see above" is a bit nonspecific in this case). — BQZip01 —talk 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anachronisms (read till the end, I found a new one) : the modern Armenian-Georgian border is not supported by the three "sources", city names are not supported by the three "sources", Khankendy as a city is not supported by the three "sources", etc. All this because the map was intended to show modern Azerbaïjan with irredentist borders; it is evident that such a map cannot be supported by sources showing ADR of 1918-1920. The last anachronism I discovered (and I'm sure there are still others) : on Baku87's map, you can see on the NW of the city of Mingäçevir a big lake, in fact the Mingachevir reservoir; someone definitely has to explain to me how it is possible that such a reservoir can be supported by three "sources" showing ADR in 1918-1920 whereas that reservoir was built at the end of the 1940's. Sardur (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The border with Armenia is pretty clearly supported by all the sources. It goes through the lake and then southwest. That's pretty consistent across all three sources.
"Khankendy" doesn't appear to be on the map, so I don't know what to tell you there. Typo on your part?
"All this because the map was intended to show modern Azerbaïjan with irredentist borders" Whether or not the motive for this map is irredentism is irrelevant as shown in the policy/guideline links above and it is supported by the given sources. I don't know what else to tell you. Removal of a lake from this picture is no big deal. Or it can be rephrased to state something like "historical borders shown over the current topography."
In any case, none of these are valid rationale for deletion. — BQZip01 —talk 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either I was not clear enough, or you misread me: I was talking about the Armenian-Georgian border. The three "sources" show another one, not the one shown on Baku87's map (which is the modern border, and in any case the post-1921 one). The three sources cannot support it per nature.
I'm assuming good faith, but the fact that you don't know that Khankendy is Xankändi makes me really wonder about your opinion here. Without any aggressivity (I insist, we don't need that here), try to be more informed, otherwise your opinion cannot be relevant. Sardur (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lake (reservoir), the Armenian-Georgian border, the city names, Khankendy, ... all this together makes this map impossible to be supported by the three "sources". Details if taken separately, but not if taken as a whole (irredentism is only an explanation, nothing more). "Historical borders shown over the current topography" is completely (per definition) not supported by the three "sources", so completely OR. My point since the very first FfD.
Oh, on top of this, one of the three "sources" has to be completely disregarded per Hewsen, an author who every users acquainted with Armenia-Azerbaijan articles recognise as reliable: it's a map in English with a Russian note. Hewsen warns about this sort of things in his work on maps: "Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible." Robert Hewsen: Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Sardur (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could have been a bit of both. I thought you were referencing the Armenian-Georgian border with Azerbaijan, not with each other. That border is barely 35 pixels wide. It doesn't appear to be far off (if at all); everyone else is welcome to make their own opinions.
"the fact that you don't know that Khankendy is Xankändi makes me really wonder about your opinion here...try to be more informed, otherwise your opinion cannot be relevant." The fact that I don't personally know the history of a city of approximately 50,000 people on the other side of the world in an area that does not influence my life is completely irrelevant. I don't need to know the history of every city mentioned in this image to point out valid rationales for keeping it. If there is more than one name for a city, please be explicit. You are making a case here, but not everyone knows everything about it.
The lake can be removed. I don't know what is wrong with the Armenian-Georgian border. Many cities have more than one name. As I stated before, including both names is possible to correct/edit and may be more apropos in this situation for clarity.
As for Hewsen's notes, quite frankly I don't care. His personal standards, as well as mine and yours, are not Wikipedia policy/guidelines.
WP:NOR doesn't apply if it has been published elsewhere before. These maps appropriately show the locations of borders and cities (whether explicitly or approximately). The original map is a PD image. There is nothing original about the information contained in this image. — BQZip01 —talk 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip01, you're just being stubborn. The current map is based on a CIA map of modern countries with current borders, it shows a border with Georgia from today, not from 1918-1920. It shows an artificial lake that did not exist before 1940, etc. These obvious mistakes aside, the two so-called sources have a legend that says that the map displays the official map published by ADR. Why is there no such legend on this map? Applying ADR's territorial claims from 1920 to a modern CIA map is nothing more than a promotion of irredentist claims today. A simple solution to this problem would be to do the following: 1) create a new map from scratch, NOT from a template map of modern countries in order to avoid the inaccuracies listed by Sardur. 2) Use the borders of official ADR maps from those sources and clearly state that the map depicts ADR's territorial claims like the maps in those sources do. 3) A similar map can be created for Democratic Republic of Armenia in the same fashion. Very simple!--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so remove the lake, the border, the city names, Khankendy, ... so remove everything. So delete it and post a new map.
I beg you pardon? Wikipedia doesn't care about your or mine standard. It cares about reliable source.
As for WP:NOR: not published as it is before. Sardur (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, we can argue this back and forth forever, or we can try and come up with a better solution. I've uploaded an image from the CIA factbook with the lake removed and the border from source 2 drawn. Does this satisfy your concerns? Where doesn't it? I'll be happy to alter said image accordingly, provided that it is appropriately sourced (I'm not putting Paris, France on it just on someone's wished) Why don't you help me come up with the appropriate image for Wikipedia? — BQZip01 —talk 03:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded a map with the modern Armenian-Turkish border. And sharing a lot of the anachronisms of the other map. Sardur (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific and tell me what needs to be fixed. — BQZip01 —talk 17:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that it is appropriately sourced is odd at best. You claimed that three sources support the map. this source refers to the treaty of Batum for the loss of Nakhichevan for instance. Nakhichevan was not lost to Azerbaijan, it was claimed by Turkey. On that map we also see Azerbaijan written on South and no borders drawn between Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Georgia and Armenia. Regarding the other two, one of them is provided by Alstadt here, we see nothing on the origin of this map, is it pre-Soviet? or published in Baku? which will mean it was edited, see several examples here. Altstadt is known to use publications originating from Baku, particularly the sources she uses. On top of that she mis attributed the altered sources to the wrong person. Here is an author who fell victim to Altstadt's misattributions. The last map is a Soviet copy of a prior English map, as Hewsen and other authors documented, those Soviet era Baku edited sources, are not credible.
There is also a contradiction, Hewsen provides the claims of Azerbaijan at that time, and they extend to the Black Sea region. You will find several editors on Wikipedia who claim Turkish culture in the Black Sea and Eastern Turkey as Azerbaijani according to the same irredentist policies. Baku87 prepared map is only sourced by the recently prepared maps which are accessible from the websites of several Azerbaijan embassies, and obviously from Heydar Alyev foundation. Those recent maps mysteriously leave off every other border claim beside those between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are obvious implications to edit the full blown Azerbaijan irredentist maps. Because leaving the originals obviously discredits their claims. There are also reasons to claim half of lake Sevan, the only major natural reservoir on that region. Checking the map of Gubernyas, one can see that Azerbaijan in any form between 1918 to 1920 or thereafter did not had any access to the lake and that if they had claims there, they obviously had against Georgia and Ottoman as well. Those claims are of course mysteriously left of those maps. VartanM (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hewsen's map does not represent the territorial claims of Armenia correctly either. According to Firuz Kazemzadeh, one of the leading experts on the period in question:
Armenia's Post-war Claims
The capitulation of the Ottoman Empire in November, 1918, seemed to herald a new era in Armenian history. Her hereditary foe
was on his knees. Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and the entire Arabian peninsula had been liberated. The victory which had come to
Armenia after so much suffering turned the heads of her leaders. They visualized a Greater Armenia, a country stretching from the
Mediterranean to the Black Sea, and from the Black Sea to the Caspian. They claimed not only the six vilayets of Anatolia, but Cilicia as well. They even claimed a part of the Persian Azerbaijan, though Persia had not been a belligerent.
Firuz Kazemzadeh. Struggle For Transcaucasia (1917—1921), New York Philosophical Library, 1951
So by your logic we should delete then Hewsen's map as well. As it was said before the present map is supported by at least 3 sources, and not an OR. There might be conflicting views on the subject, but we should present them all, and not just the one that suits the POV of a certain group of users here. Grandmaster 08:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I voted on this map before too. As per previous argument. --Aynabend (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: The user's only two edits since January 21, 2009 were on AFD board voting to keep this map. VartanM (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not supported by reliable sources and wrong borders. VartanM (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to react on user Grandmasters statement as if the map of Baku87 is supported by many reliable sources. First, user Baku87 initially referred to a map as his source which apparently contradicts wit the map in question. So does essentially this map of Firouzeh Mostashari which according to Grandmaster would support that of Baku87. The map of Firouzeh Mostashari represents the Official map of the Azebaijan Democratic Republic 1920 and its caption reads:
These are the names of certain administrative divisions of the Russian Empire until 1917 (they did not exist in 1920), so the map makes clear that it represents areas of the former Russian Empire claimed by the ADR. The map of Baku87 is CIA-type and makes the impression that those areas were indeed within the borders of the DRA (CIA maps usually show de-jure borders), though the ADR had no internationally recognized borders, nor even stable de-facto borders. Moreover, the Official map of the ADR in 1920 shows the Surmalu Province as Disputed Area with Armenia, which the map of Baku87 does not. A map like the abovementioned Official map of the Azebaijan Democratic Republic 1920 would be useful to use in the ADR article (e.g. in the Territorial_disputes section). I belive Baku87 has made the map in question not to picture a certain political condition, but rather propaganda (as one can see here [10][11][12][13] etc.) and therefore vote for its deletion. --Vacio (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. --Vacio (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows the territories of the newly established Azerbaijan republic that were formerly parts of the 3 Russian provinces in the Caucasus. You are voting to delete the map based on the one from the published third party source just because you think that it is propaganda? So far I haven't seen any serious argument for deletion of this map. The claims of copyvio have been proved to be baseless. Inaccuracies have been fixed, and if any more are found, they will be fixed too. The claims of propaganda are just bad faith. The claims that the image does not look nice also cannot be a good reason for deletion, there are much uglier maps around here. So what else? Grandmaster 09:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the map to be accurate based on the given publish sources. Ergo, no WP:OR
There is no evidence of a copyright violation of any kind (merely claiming the appearance of an image on another website is not a copyvio...especially since the image here is PD based on a PD image)
I've offered to fix any errors, but no response. This leads me to believe that some individuals here are more interested in removing the image and any propaganda from an opposing viewpoint than fixing the problem.
The annotation is at the heart of the problem. The borders and other inaccuracies could be fixed prior to adding this image to an article but I have seen no indication by anyone other than you that the correct annotation is going to be applied, directly on the image. But even then it would be ill advised to have such an image in an article because it's only going to confuse readers. There are going to be three maps with different borders for each of the three states in the Caucasus in 1918-1920? A detailed map that displays border disputes is always preferable to one that merely depicts one states territorial claims.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wishfull thinkings. There's still no serious answer to one of the copyright issues, and there are a lot of inaccuracies to be fixed. Sardur (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez and others already explained that there are no copyright issues here. And any inaccuracies can be fixed in a due course, just point them out. Still no reason to delete other than what appears to be a desire to suppress certain info. Grandmaster 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be impressive if GM or BQZ or some other individual who is playing the role of apologist could explain how exactly these were the borders of Azerbaijan. Just because Azerbaijan claimed these as its borders (after only giving up its laughable territorial claims in Turkey) does not mean that these were the de facto or de jure recognized borders of the republic. It was an all out territorial dispute: Armenians who formed an overwhelming majority in Karabakh did not recognize Azerbaijani authority and Azerbaijan never fully exercised its power in the region (Bek Sultanov position was strictly provisional) until sovietization; while the Muslims in Nakhichevan refused to recognize Armenian authority, a fully effective Armenian administration was already in place by the spring of 1920 (see Hovannisian in the aforecited book "The Republic of Armenia", pp. 318-319). GM's criticism against Robert Hewsen (whose map was published in 2001), who taught Russian history for 30 years, by citing a book written during the Cold War is as inadequate as it is absurd.
It's about time we finally consign these asinine Baku fairy tales to the wastebasket. If this map does not serve as an example of irrenditism and an Azeri version of lebensraum, I don't know what does.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZ sort of backtracked, he is now admitting that this is propaganda and that it should be labelled as such but that just creates the problem of having three, mutually contradicting maps. One for each article.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never "backtracked" stating it was or wasn't propaganda. I stated that "even if it were propaganda...". My point is that even propaganda, appropriately labeled, is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Simply stating that Azerbaijan "claims" this as its history and others dispute it is appropriate for inclusion. There is already a section regarding such controversy and inclusion of this image would be illustrative of such a dispute. Again, I'm not specifically concerned with what the "truth" is for purposes of Wikipedia usage. Just because we include this map does not mean we have to have other maps. Furthermore, that give me an idea as to what might be the best compromise: composing a map which shows all three versions (each version in a different color). Thoughts? Again, I'm open to coming up with a better image, but it seems that people are more bent on erasing this image than creating an appropriate one to illustrate the dispute in question. — BQZip01 —talk 06:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Marshal, neither of 3 states in the Caucasus had internationally recognized borders. And Hovannisian in the same book writes further on the page 327:
The bitter territorial disputes with Azerbaijan continued unabated, and, to make matters worse, a Muslim uprising within Armenia drove Armenian administrators and thousands of peasants out of Sharur and Nakhichevan and sealed the route to Persia.
So as you can see, Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan, yet Hewsen included it within the borders of Armenia, [14] and it is not clear on which principle it is made, since the region was not controlled by Armenia either de-jure or de-facto. You see that both this map and that of Armenia are based on reliable sources, and while they contradict each other, they represent territorial aspirations of the newly created states. So presenting the Armenian map as the one reflecting reality, and deleting this one will not work, as we will keep one point of view and suppress the other one. The rules require that we present all existing scholarly opinions, and suppressing the one supported by 3 reliable sources is not acceptable. As it was demonstrated, the map discussed here is not someone's fantasy, but is made on the basis of reliable sources. Answering Eupator's question, I think we should keep the maps representing the points of view of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and also create another map, fairly representing all territorial disputes in the Caucasus. I believe we should take this map, the map of Armenia by Hewsen, put them together, and highlight overlapping borders. Then we can use it in addition to the official maps published in 1918. But the official map of Azerbaijan must remain, as it is a historical document. And Marshal, repeatedly comparing Azerbaijan with Nazy Germany is not really nice, and even insulting. Please stop it. Grandmaster 06:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, Armenia controlled Nakhichevan, albeit not stable, until 1920. See for example this source:
Six months later, the defeats of the Turks and of the German loosened the stranglehold on the republic. The Armenians reoccupied Kars and the Nakhichevan and Lorri regions. On 10 August 1920 the Treaty of Sevres officially recognized the independence of Armenia, which became an independent state spread over about 27,000 square miles (70,000 square kilometres).
...On 2 December 1920 the Armenian government was forced to renounce the Treaty of Sevres and hand back Kars, Ardahan and the Nakhichevan. The next day the country became a Soviet Republic.
Also, Hewsens map of the DRA coincides even with the map of Tadeusz Swietochowski. Btw, so far you contended that Nakhichevan was never controlled by Armenia, but you never provided a single source to assert that it has ever been under the control of the ADR between 1918-1920. And all the time you try to equate a map from an academic source with that of Baku87. You still keep neglecting the essential differences between the two and calling the latter the official map of Azerbaijan. No, we can't accept the map of Baku87 as the official map of the ADR. The map of ADR in 1920 shows certain territories labeled as "Disputed Area with Georgia" and "Disputed area with Armenia", which the map of Baku87 omitted. Furthermore, the map of Baku87 shows the modern Armenian-Turkic boundary. And why on earth the "official map" of the de-jure unrecognized ADR must be an imitation of CIA maps, which usually represents boundaries accepted by the international community? The territorial claims of Azerbaijan were never accepted by the international community in 1920 and contemporary political maps of Europe show quite different provisional boundaries of the region. Once more, I am not against the use of the official map of ADR in Wikipedia, but rather against creating maps with self-willed alterations and misleading layout. --Vacio (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2009 (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.
Keep. There is nothing wrong with this map. But good nomination for deletion can be this map? Alakbaroff (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jew emoticon.gif
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.
Image was uploaded for use within a sig (not allowed), is not used. In addition seems to be made solely to be offensive. roux 22:10, 1 March 2009 (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.
Tlkiisp-zazu.png
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.
Superfluous FU image; there is already one in the article. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing extraordinary that the infobox pic can't suffice, purely decorative non-free use. Ejfetters (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2009 (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.
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
