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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA Showroom1 dakota jackson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Strohlnco (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or move to Commons). This is potentially a featured picture for Wikipedia. It is not just an image. It is obviously art. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied to Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:36, 17 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Library Chair dakota jackson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Strohlnco (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied to Commons and tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or move to Commons). Obviously art, not just an image. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vikter dakota jackson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Strohlnco (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied to Commons and tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and move to Commons). Obviously art, not just an image. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saturn stool dakota jackson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Strohlnco (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or move to Commons). –xeno^talk 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied to Commons and tagged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and move to Commons). Obviously art, not just an image. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polycanlogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Kwdoyle (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned company logo, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no apparent reason for keeping this on file.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (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. The original nomination proposed that the use of this image did not meet NFCC #8 and subsequently it was suggested that the use of the image did not meet NFCC #1. Having read the comments, relevant and not, the consensus view, as read by your humble closer and interpreted in line with policy and prevailing standards, appears to be as follows on each of these counts:

• In relation to NFCC #8, it seems to me that, by the standards which we judge such things, this image does have contextual significance. Were our standards to be higher in the future, this might no longer be the case. But, contrary to J Milburn's slippery slope argument below - "if we can't enforce them on high-profile, highly academic articles, what chance do we have on articles about rappers or porn films?" - the answer would appear to me to be that if we were aiming to change the standard we should raise the bar at the bottom end, removing the endless Transformers toys, album covers, book covers, and the rest, before starting on the harder cases. Your mileage may vary but the consensus here is not for deletion on this basis

• In relation to NFCC #1, the proposals to use alternative supposedly free images are weak. The replacements do not seem to me to convey the same sense. The File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-186-0160-12, Lemberg, Misshandlung eines Juden.jpg series may come closest, but not close enough to necessarily serve "the same encyclopedic purpose" since the police are merely depicted as looking on rather than as participating in the affair. But as the Bundesarchiv continue their campaign of uploading images to Commons, this image may well become replaceable since the event depicted will hardly have been unique.

• Again in relation to NFCC #1, the proposals to replace the use of this image by prose seem to fail, the suggested replacements being quite inadequate. Better prose may eventually render this image superfluous under NFCC #1, but this is clearly not the case at this time.

As to the freeness of the BA images being uploaded to Commons, the implausible copyright claim by Yad Vashem, and the question of whether this image is free or unfree, those things we must leave for another day. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Crum375 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Not clear what this image is adding to the article. The general terms of the rationale are not at all helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. This is one of the periodic attempts by a small number of editors to have Holocaust images deleted, something I will never understand if I live to be a thousand years old (which I fully intend to do!).

  It is an image from Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel, author unknown. It shows German policemen kicking a Jew in the streets of Rzeszow, Poland, and it's being used in the Holocaust article to illustrate day-to-day life for European Jews in certain countries during that period.

  Because of the time period the Holocaust occurred in, just 70-ish years ago, we're not able to claim public domain for any of the images, so we're forced to claim fair use. For obvious reasons author releases are impossible to come by, even when the names of the photographers are known. Sometimes these images were taken by Nazi officers. Sometimes they were taken by passers-by and underground movements at great personal risk to themselves to show the world what was happening. It has always struck me as the supreme irony that a project designed to be the sum of all human knowledge wants to exclude images smuggled out of Holocaust Europe to educate the world about what was going on.

  These images are suggested for deletion with such regularity—J Milburn also wanted File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg to be deleted recently, a child dying in the Warsaw ghetto—that I think the time has come to add something to the image policies that excludes these nominations, or to ask that the Foundation involve itself. I realize that J Milburn is acting in good faith. He has the interests of the project in mind, and its free nature, but there is more than one kind of freedom at stake here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is ridiculous. We don't need new policies for images of a certain thing- this is a non-free image. I am more than happy for free images of the Holocaust to be used on the project- I recently supported one at FPC, for instance. The use of this image with regards to our policy is currently a little questionable. Can we stop throwing around the hyperbole and look into the issue at hand? J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed you removing a few Holocaust images recently, though you must know how difficult it is to find free ones. This was one of the issues raised during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama, where people made clear that they didn't agree with attempts to remove them. If you want to look for images that illustrate inappropriate fair-use claims, I can only ask that you don't focus on the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't focus on Holocaust articles in any way, shape or form. Can we forget about the fact that this image is to do with the Holocaust? That's not important. It's non-free, and so must be treated like any other non-free image, whether you, me or "people" like or dislike the subject matter. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Like all the policies, the fair-use policy has to be approached with common sense, and consensus on Wikipedia during every single discussion I've ever seen about this is that Holocaust images are acceptable under the fair-use policies, because text just isn't enough to describe what happened. Because of the time frame, and because we almost never have releases, there is no alternative to fair use. I don't know what else to say to you because consensus on that is very clear, and you haven't given any reason that this image should be deleted, except that you personally don't understand why it's being used. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your suggestion that "is that Holocaust images are acceptable under the fair-use policies" is ridiculous. Of course they are, if they meet the crtieria. There are no rules that make "Holocaust images" any more or any less likely to meet our criteria, so trying to judge them as a group is a complete waste of time. Yes, there will be plenty of "Holocaust images" which could be used legitimately on Wikipedia in certain places. No one's arguing about that. My suggestion here is that, yes, I do not see what it's being used for or why it is being used, and that the useless, general rationale does nothing to help me understand. Nothing about "Holocaust images". J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave it to others to weigh in here. I've explained what it's being used for, and you can see it for yourself, so I don't know what else to say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You've shouted a lot about censorship and freedom and the Holocaust generally (especially "Holocaust images", whatever they are), I've seen precious little about our NFCC. The RFC has nothing to do with this issue; I'm not suggesting that this is replaceable, I've never said that. What's the image showing? Why does that need to be shown so urgently? You've also made no effort to deal with the piss-poor rationale. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Fair use rationale given on picture and by SlimVirgin is clear, accurate, and persuasive. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, what rationale was that? J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The comment of 11:13, 14 September 2010 just above, and the rationale on the image itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, as I said, the rationale on the image page is useless and generic. It could apply to any image, anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Let's look at just four of the many statements in the rationale:
        • It offers an insight into the vagaries of life for Jews during the Holocaust
        • Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.
        • Because of the age of Holocaust images there is no realistic prospect of finding a similar image that will be in the public domain in the United States
        • As is usually the case with Holocaust images, it is not possible to obtain a release, and in this case the author is unknown
      • All those "could apply to any image, anywhere"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The rationale is stuffed full of vague terminology. It seems the image is being used to "offer an insight into the vagaries of life for Jews during the Holocaust". Ok- why's it so urgent that's shown and do we really have no free images that could do that? J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regardless of NFCC#8, I have found some others showing conditions. Forced labour, armbands, more forced labour, ghetto, old women and children on rubble, and there are no doubt others. Would they not serve to "offer an insight into the vagaries of life for Jews during the Holocaust"? J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't illustrate anything close to the same issue, and four of them lack author information and are not old enough to be PD, so they're odd examples for you to highlight. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your concerns. I've updated reason two to read It offers an insight into the daily humiliations and injuries suffered by Jews in Poland at the hands of German officials during the Holocaust. I hope this makes it more clear why it's so important and relevant, and why the alternatives you proposed wouldn't at all illustrate the same concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I wasn't looking at the licensing, I assumed that if they were on Commons they were fine. Nominate them for deletion if you are concerned; otherwise, let's assume they're free for now... Jayjg, ok, but why do we specifically need an image to "offer an insight into the daily humiliations and injuries suffered by Jews in Poland at the hands of German officials during the Holocaust"? No, I (doubt) we have a free image that shows exactly that, but I'm looking at this from NFCC#8 grounds now... If that's an important issue, yes, by all means, talk about it with reliable sources, but why precisely do we need an image? J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I've nominated a number of them for deletion at Commons myself, if you're interested in weighing in on the discussion... J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any free Holocaust images. They're not old enough, and the authors are usually unknown or not contactable. There are some from the Bundesarchiv that they gave us, but the images weren't theirs to give, which is overlooked on the Commons because it was such a large and welcome gift. But the fact is that we should almost always be claiming fair use, and those claims should be allowed, because from any common sense, legal, ethical, and educational perspective there's no problem at all with our use of them.

What you're doing here is very POINTy, J, and you're not making yourself look good, if you care about that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, we have a large number of Holocaust images on Commons. If you are not convinced that they are free, do the right thing and nominate them for deletion. If you're not willing to do that, with all due respect, shut up. And, for what it's worth, anyone looking at this objectively can see you're doing yourself no favours either- you have ignored the point in order to attempt to turn this into something that it isn't. To be frank, I've been told that before, and it just reeks of "well, I know you're right, but go away, I DON'T CARE". I think you realise I find you a very difficult person to talk to- your perceptions of how things are are more than a little bit unusual on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've posted on my talk page that you're going to try to remove images from The Holocaust article, [1] which I feel confirms that there's a POINT issue here. JM, please recall what happened when you tried to defend pedophiles editing Wikipedia. You were taking the arguments as far as you could, and if you recall I defended you when you were attacked for it, because I could see that's all you were doing. But this is a similar issue. You've decided to focus on a very sensitive issue, and ruthlessly apply what you see as logic and the rules of Wikipedia. But there has to be room for community norms too, even when they conflict with other rules, or seem irrational.

This isn't the place to be having that discussion, though. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what point am I trying to prove with this disruption? We have policies, and the fact this is a controversial topic shouldn't matter. The policy is nothing to do with the controversiality of this subject. Would you accuse someone of trying to clean up the article MOS-wise of POINT disruption? Why on Earth should the NFCC be any different? J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arguments presented above are noticeable, compounding the impopularity what the Wikipedia Non-Free doctrine actually says (is essence it says Arbeit macht frei, and many people loath working) with the percieved defence of some Jewish interests. This last point is noble, but I so not see why the Jewish holocaust should entail an exception to the Fair Use doctrine (why not Gypsies or homosexuals?); furthermore, I see more or less explicit insinuations of revisionism that should simply have no place here. I believe that the occurrence of ad hominem insinuations (either of revisionism or of WP:POINT while J Milburn is perfectly in line with policies), calls for exemptions of Wikipedia policies and FUD tactics as to the actual Free images that we have all herald the weakness of the arguments for keeping this image. Rama (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever argued anywhere on Wikipedia that images of Jewish victims should take priority over any other, and indeed we also claim fair use for images of Roma victims. Rama, I can't imagine why you'd think it appropriate to use the phrase "Arbeit macht frei" (and that many people loath working?) as some kind of analogy here, though I'm very glad to say I didn't understand your point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The still stands that you have effectively argued to ignore the NFCC in favour of decorating the article with images- seems to be basic case exceptionalism. Whether this is because of "Jewish interests" or whatever I don't know, I don't want to second-guess your motives. However, it's not the way we should be working here. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not because of "Jewish issues." Guys, please take a step back and look at your posts. Jewish interests? Arbeit macht frei?

It's because the Holocaust can't be taught in words alone. It is because people struggled to get these images out of occupied Europe to educate the rest of the world. It's because there is no legal or ethical reason not to use them, and because we're an educational project, and these images educate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I didn't want to second-guess why you were being exceptionalist, I was just observing that you were. There's no legal or ethical reason not to use a great deal of non-free content- hell, there's no legal or ethical reason for most of our points of the NFCC in most cases. For instance, images that are not free for commercial use, despite the fact there's no obvious ethical or legal issue with our use of them, are treated as "non-free". However, the point remains that we do have NFCC, and if we can't enforce them on high-profile, highly academic articles, what chance do we have on articles about rappers or porn films? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appropriate fair use. –xeno^talk 13:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howso? This has hardly been the least controversial discussion, a little explanation would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It meets all ten criteria of the WP:NFCC. (I disagree that the subject could be adequately conveyed through text alone.) –xeno^talk 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not trying to badger you here, but what do you feel that this image is illustrating, why do you feel it's so urgent that that is illustrated, and why do you feel there is not a free image that could replace it? J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The top-down nature of the abuse, the fact that it was institutionalized, etc. I'm not sure why you are so strenuously arguing for the deletion of this iconic instructive image - your efforts would be better spent elsewhere (no free alternative has been put forth, our legal exposure here is nil, it is used in appropriate context and adds substantial value to the article). –xeno^talk 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's iconic? How so? Do we have secondary sources pointing to its historical significance? None are referred to in the text, caption, or image description page. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • None ready-to-hand, so amended. –xeno^talk 15:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • How does this photo show that the abuse is institutionalized? It's a soldier kicking someone on the street. There's no indication that the soldier is acting under orders. And more importantly, where is this described in the article? howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fact that the others look on with obvious enthusiastic endorsement. –xeno^talk 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And we need an image of this so urgently because... J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because it improves the article and the encyclopedia, and there is no reason to remove it (other than dogmatic adherence to a subjective interpretation of a guideline). –xeno^talk 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • ^ This. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • How?! "It improves the article" is not an explanation of how it meets NFCC#8, it's just an assertion that it does... J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It contributes to the gestalt of the article, providing a visual depiction of the institutionalized abusive treatment of Jewish people during this time period. –xeno^talk 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • An image has to stand on its own merits if it is to pass the NFCC, not be one of many that, overall, make an article nice. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • And I've already indicated to you why I feel that it passes the NFCC. –xeno^talk 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Slim Virgin; this is an appropriate use of an unfree image under both fair-use legal doctrines and our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howso? This has hardly been the least controversial discussion, a little explanation would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no reason to re-litigate this each time a new editor expresses an opinion associating themselves with previous comments. Such behavior could well be seen as badgering, and is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: after reading SlimVirgins description of this thread, I advised him to take a day off and stop the drama. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Bolded word comment -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed (though not SV is a she)- SV's attitude here has been more than a little difficult. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I find the fair use argument to be persuasive. I hope everyone will calm down here, (and I to a large extent understand why SV would be upset when Rama is throwing around arbeit macht frei as a positive remark indicates an astounding lack of clue and borderline trolling). JoshuaZ (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis that the picture in the image is easily described by text "A interned prisoner is beaten up by a guard while other guards watch happily." Conveys the same information towards the topic without the need of non-free content. If this picture were free, yes, it would fine to include, but as non-free it is easily replaced by text to get the same point across. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, did you actually look at the picture? It wasn't an interned prisoner, and he wasn't beaten up by a guard. What you describe is common, even today. What this picture shows is very different. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I started reading this discussion, and the very first oppose brings an attack against the person who brought the FfD and similar editors. Attacking your fellow editors is NOT the way to present your best argument for deletion. Further, treating people who question non-free holocaust images with the veiled insinuation they are pro holocaust is beyond the pale. This has nothing to do with emotional constructs surrounding the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? the veiled insinuation they are pro holocaust? Veiled? Why didn't you unveil it then, Hammersoft, for us? Pro hcaust, what is that? No diffs, no quotes, no names, no logic. Thank you for clarifying, Hammersoft. And then, concluding: This has nothing to do with emotional constructs surrounding the subject. No. Mentioning a hcaust has nothing to do with emotional construct (whatever that is at all). No. It's just business as usual in building an encyclopedia. Sure. -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete There's a number of reasons. First, we must ask 'what does this image bring to the subject?' Easy. Treatment of Jews by Nazis. Next question, 'do we have free content (either in images or text) that serves the same purpose?' Not quite as easy, but the answer is an emphatic yes. We have a category at Commons with literally hundreds of free license images having to do with the Holocaust. A number of other examples have already been cited in this discussion, and I found others as well in a cursory review. Another question to ask is whether the article reads the same with and without the image. Easy answer again; the image isn't even referenced in the text. There's no connection between it and the text, except vaguely by way of section headings. Another question to ask is if the image is historically significant as supported by secondary sources. That answer is easy too; no. There's no sourced commentary (or even commentary) about the image or its historical significance. In short, it's being used to loosely illustrate this article in a way that is readily replaceable by free alternatives. There's nothing about its absence that detracts from the article. This is a clear failure of WP:NFCC #1 and #8. I'd also like to note there's been attempts in this debate to explode this single debate into a war cry regarding all such images. We're not debating all such images. We're debating this image, and this image alone. Enough of the rhetoric, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• tentative Keep having looked through the commons for a similiar image, I am forced to conclude this is the only free one of this quality that can be found. Thus I am comforatble using it right now. However I shall look and i encourage others to look for a free one of similar quality and depiction. BB7 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is zero commentary on this specific image. In order to properly use this photo, you have to find sources that actually discuss it specifically (and not just the event that the photo depicts -- this is a subtle difference). BB7 above me says there is no alternative in the Commons category of the same quality; unfortunately that is irrelevant. The true question is, do we have a replacement that serves the same encyclopedic purpose, which as many have already pointed out, is to show the violent treatment of Jews at the hands (or feet, in this case) of Nazis. So looking through what we have finds us these possibilities:

• 
• 
• 
• File:Wiesbaden Synagogue Burning1939.jpg
• 
• 

I'm sure there are more that can fit the bill as well, but I didn't look too hard. howcheng {chat} 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those serve the same instructive purpose. –xeno^talk 15:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What instructive purpose is that? It seems whenever a replacement is found, the purpose of the image changes to something else that absolutely has to be illustrated or the article will be useless. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that above at 14:35. –xeno^talk 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, it's the issue that must be the subject of debate, not the image. The policy says: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary," but it doesn't mean the image itself must have been the focus of debate. If it meant that, almost all our fair-use images would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but the fact that an issue (and it would have to be a very specific issue to be illustrated by this image but none of our free ones...) is discussed does not mean that we need an image. We use an image only if there is no way that the issue could be fully understood without it. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument here, which you haven't addressed, is that the Holocaust as a whole is poorly understand without the collection of images as a whole, and that it makes no sense to try to judge the value of each image separately. I can understand having this discussion if there was some legal issue at stake, but given that there is zero legal problem, I'm baffled by this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images have to be judged on their own merits- that's what the NFCC is all about. As for the legalities- there may be, there may not be, I'm no lawyer. I'm not really too concerned. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to be concerned. Raising an issue like this where there's no legal or ethical issue, no copyright issue, no possibility in a thousand years of anyone objecting, and which relies on an overly strict interpretation of the fair-use policy—an interpretation it's far from clear you have consensus for—serves only to make the policy look silly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. The image is non-free, whether it's an article you like or not. The policy concerns non-free media, not "media SlimVirgin thinks we may get sued for using". J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ethical issue: our principle that we limit non-free content to that which is truly necessary. We either have principles, or we don't. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is really the right venue for such a discussion, but I think an examination of how NFCC (or the interpretation of NFCC) has gone completely overboard (not just in this case, but in many cases) is definitely needed. There are principles to having a free (as in speech) project, to be sure. But there are also principles of common sense that seem to have been sacrificed at some point. And that's simply not right. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said simliar quality and Depiction So far i see none that show a simliar depiction thus Fair use is acecptable until a free one can be found. BB7 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe you ignored my earlier statement, which is that we have free equivalents that serve the same encyclopedic purpose, which is to show the everyday mistreatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. We don't need to replace this with another image of a soldier kicking a man when he's down. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I has never a big fun of Legalism. Ruslik_Zero 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...That's one of the least helpful comments I've ever seen. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although there are no real copyright problems with this image, and although it might be free. But establishing that needs some work. Which would also make this image more encyclopedic. Questions that need to be answered are: When was this first published? Where? Where did this photo come from, who was the photographer, when was this photo made? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's fair use. I would say that, in general, the fair use guidelines have become far, far too strict (or rather a handful of editors are interpreting what constitutes fair use far too strictly). This is probably a good example of this trend. I also doubt that there's any real copyright on this image at all, but I suppose it's possible that there is. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NFCC have always been stricter than merely "fair use"- otherwise, what's the point in having them? Obviously, there would be no objection if it was free, but, until there is evidence that it is, it has to be treated as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "fair use" is a real term out in the real world. And it's used in a pretty lax manner generally (for newspapers, etc.). So I don't really understand why a few Wikipedians take such a hard-line approach with NFCC. There's no mandate for NFCC to be as rigid (or as rigidly interpreted) as it is. If you're asking me whether NFCC has gone overboard, I think the answer is fairly obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there is: NFC (more specifically, an exemption doctrine policy for copyright media files) and BLP are only two mandates that have been passed down on the project from the Foundation. Their sandbox, their rules. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And besides, that's the law: copyright is assumed unless proven otherwise. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Yad Vashem claiming on their website to have all rights reserved doesn't actually mean that they do. At this point in time, I suppose it's fair to take them at their word, but I'd be curious to know how they got the copyright to this photo. It seems far more likely to me that their footer is simply wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyfraud is outside the scope of this discussion. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, we assume it's copyrighted until shown otherwise; so, until shown otherwise, this usage has to meet our NFCC. In any other setting, this would most certainly not meet the NFCC; why the fact the article is about the Holocaust is having such an effect on people is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Slim and Xeno. Also, Rama should strike his comments above that trivialize Nazi atrocities. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a historically important image, important to the reader to confey the subject matter; a text-only description would be insufficient. There's also issues of the rarity of images from this setting, so finding a free alternative is all but impossible. I see little that is rebutting these arguments so far, other than from those with an apparently draconian interpretation of NFCC. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons has many free images. That's hardly a well-informed opinion. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any that show maltreatment of a Jewish person while others look on in obvious enjoyment? –xeno^talk 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does it matter? If we had a sourced discussion of the fact that there was maltreatment of Jewish people while others looked on in obvious enjoyment, there may be a discussion to have there. I don't believe we do. Again, it would seem that if this image is being used to illustrate something in which it does not fail NFCC#1, it fails NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your opinion, one I do not share. –xeno^talk 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you feel that having no image to "show maltreatment of a Jewish person while others look on in obvious enjoyment" would be "detrimental to [reader] understanding"? J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Quite. –xeno^talk 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)And that was hardly a well-informed response above, since yes, it does matter. The image is being used in conjunction with a section title "Early measures in German occupied Poland", and is a good depiction of the treatment of Jews in the timer period before exterminations began. And you don't need to reply to each and every person who weighs in here with a keep. You're making this into much more of a battleground than it should be. Please, have some tea and chill a bit. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos that show maltreatment of Jewish person while others look on in enjoyment:

• 
  Smiling person in background
• 
  Crowd watching a non-soldier beat up some guy without interfering (one in a series of 3 photos)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Howcheng (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts (realizing it is not a pleasant task looking through these images), but neither of these are suitable alternatives to the very instructive image under discussion. The first is quite peripheral and not showing maltreatment of a still-breathing person, the second is a citizen, not a policeman/soldier, and while the crowd is looking on & apparently failing to intervene, they do not look on with enjoyment or enthusiasm. –xeno^talk 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we clearly have free photos available of the Holocaust, including many depicting the actual atrocities in all their horror: [2]. Given this, the nonfree content cannot remain. It is not only replaceable but in fact replaced with free content. This is, for good reason, an emotional issue for many people, and it is certainly understandable why, but the same rules apply even to highly charged issues. In this case, that rule is clear—if we have free content, no nonfree is allowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear that any photographs of the Holocaust are free, SB. The Bundesarchiv gave us some, but they weren't theirs to give. Others have PD claimed for them even though they're not old enough and we have no author information. I hesitate to post this in case it unleashes some editors hunting them down and wanting to delete them. But by pretending we have some free ones, and therefore can't use others, we're just perpetuating the confusion. The fact is that, because of when the Holocaust occurred, and because most of the authors are dead or unknown, we have almost no free images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can demonstrate that those images are nonfree, Commons will delete them. Otherwise, you are spreading FUD about a sizable collection of images stated to be free. When we have free images of something, we never use nonfree ones. Until and unless you demonstrate that every Holocaust image on Commons is nonfree and successfully apply for their deletion on these grounds, we must use free images over nonfree. Every time, with no exceptions, regardless of popularity or emotional charge of the issue (as evidenced by the voting, ! deliberately excluded, here). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade—why do you think that images are substitutable for other images? I would disagree. I think the choice of images for an article such as the Holocaust is subjective. Consensus, I think, assumes a position of greater importance in those settings in which it is decided upon that our emotional responses matter highly. It think it is the pathos in addition to a whole slew of other qualities that every editor's eye is looking out for in evaluating photographs. Bus stop (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've shown that they're replaceable and replaced. Even if nonfree images are of "inferior quality", or other subjective determinations, we always use free rather than nonfree. Always, no exceptions. NFC is a lot like NPOV—it is a Foundation issue, a founding issue, and has no exceptions whatsoever. We wouldn't allow a POV article about the Holocaust (despite that it may be the one event many may support it on), and we cannot allow a replaceable nonfree image of the Holocaust (despite that it may be the one event many may support it on). Replaceable nonfree images are never allowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image selection for articles can involve subjective evaluations. You are saying that you have "shown" that one image can replace another, but have you shown it to the satisfaction of all others? Comparing photographs, especially of something as otherworldly as the holocaust, can involve complex calculations. The holocaust is so unusual that two pictures are not likely to be very similar. I am doubtful that one photo can be said to replace another. The circumstance of the holocaust is foreign to the experience of most people. Photographs tend to confirm what cannot be believed when only presented in written words. The cliche "seeing is believing" is probably expressive of this. I think that subjects such as the holocaust or other total breakdowns of civilization, such as the Rwandan Genocide, call for a higher degree than usual of discussion and a greater reliance than usual on consensus. I think this is especially true concerning the decision-making process involving photographs to be used to document such an event. Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Firstly, although I think the image should be deleted, I express amazement at Rama's comment, and suggest he strikes or removes it. Secondly, to characterize editors as wanting to remove images of the holocaust is unfair, I've been accused as having a bias against modern art, comics and tv shows, and the constant accusations are becoming tiresome. Thirdly, to answer to MZMcBride, the guiding principle, stipulated by the foundation is still "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose", or in other words, the small group of editors looking to delete such images are acting within policy. The holocaust, is of course, most definitely a historically significant event, however other editors commenting here have shown that non-free images are available. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the commons, I found a couple of relevant free images:

PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not free, Phil. Just because something is on the Commons doesn't mean it's free—things are often tagged wrongly, or people misunderstand the rules. With the Holocaust being relatively recent, the authors often unknown, and first publication dates unknown, there are very few free images. And even when we do have these details, they're free only in very limited circumstances (confiscated by the U.S. military, for example, is one of the criteria I believe). So far as I can tell, none of the images people have posted so far are free within our policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, we simply can't accept that kind of comment in good faith unless you're willing to nominate the images for deletion. While they exist unchallenged on Commons, we should be treating them as free. If they're not free, we should be nominating them for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All other photographs depict either execution of Jews (or non-Jews) or other Nazi organised actions, most of which took place in separate guarded places like camps or ghettos. By contrast, the picture discussed here shows a situation on some unspecified city street, in other words, this picture seems to be an example of a scene ordinary non-Jewish citizens could frequently witness. Therefore this picture is a good complement to other photographs and, in my opinion, the encyclopaedic purpose of the article is not completely achieved without this photo.-Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. And in reading the discussion above, it would seem that this is mostly an IDONTLIKEIT nom. And before you accuse me of presuming bad faith, please remember that we're not directed to AGF when evidence to the contrary is presented to us. And it would seem to me that there is indeed such here. (Merely my opinion, of course, nonetheless.) And while IANAL it just seems surprising to me that the rationales already listed on the file are being considered the way they are. I've encountered so many other files in the last few years which had far less in the way of justifications. And Paul Siebert (and others') comments above make it pretty clear that it's the specific depictions in the image which make it illustrative for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. Can it be considered a disturbing image? yes. But as I noted at the start: Wikipedia is not censored. - jc37 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Bullshit. I have no idea why you're accusing me of that- my nomination was entirely about the NFCC, and every argument I have presented here has been. It's some of the people in support of the image who have tried to turn it into something else- I've been actively trying to drag the discussion back to the NFCC. Have you actually read the discussion, or are you just jumping to conclusions that make it easier to dismiss objections to the image? J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I read everything here and several links.

  If this is only about the NFCC, and you'd truly like this to not be about the Holocaust (as you've noted above - though honestly I'm having a hard time coming to that conclusion at first glance, I'll be very happy to be proven incorrect in my assessment) - what's the problem? it would seem that the FUR has been explained and re-explained. What's so obvious to you that the keepers are missing? (I think I understand the question of attribution, I mean besides that - or is that the whole of the argument?) And if things are ok now, can this just be closed as resolved? And if not, why not? - jc37 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Try to see the forest through the tress here people. By random coincidence I happened upon this photo just last week and it struck me then as an almost perfect picture of what life was like under the nazi regime. It's not in one of the death camps, it just shows the day-to-day miseries inflicted by the nazis and their toadies on anyone who didn't fit in with their fascist ideology.SlimVirgin's FUR is compelling as well. It's more or less impossible to find out at this point who actually took this photo, an argument can be made that nobody has any right to restrict it's use, and I certainly don't think it is at all likely that it will ever cause any legal problems for the Foundation to keep it. The site it was taken from wants the information they have to be shared and seen by as many people as possible so that this never happens again. I admit this is s a soft spot for me and has been ever since reading works by Alexander Donat and Primo Levi some years ago, but this nomination and the arguments to delete strike me as process for the sake of process as opposed to a legitimate attempt to either improve Wikipedia or protect it from lawsuits. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—the image is iconic. The editors above have clearly pointed out that common sense should be applied to any policy, including the copyright policy. Fair use images are not prohibited on Wikipedia, they are discouraged in principle for reasons I won't go into now. However, there is another reason this particular image should stay; the image itself is iconic, like for example this copyrighted image. Images like this are known to be associated with the topic so whether they're free becomes less relevant. Keep in mind that we aren't violating any copyright laws here and there's no legal problem. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iconic how? Source? You're throwing around words and not backing them up here. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A picture can be iconic without being a cultural icon. The image is a visceral depiction of the maltreatment of the Jewish people during this time period: it speaks a thousand words. –xeno^talk 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SlimVirgin and others. Only in the most hypertechnical sense is this a fair-use image rather than a free image. Requests for deletion of encyclopedic content based on purely notional copyright concerns—that is, in contexts where there is no meaningful possibility that a copyright interest will ever be asserted by anyone—are generally unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are free or are they are non-free- it really is that black and white. Attempts to introduce middle-ground (noncom, for Wikipedia use, "logos" etc) have been strongly resisted. This image is non-free until shown otherwise; treating it as anything else completely undermines the entire point of having NFCC. Reading that, from you, has really crossed the line into "this is a waste of my fucking time, why do I even bother", and so this is going off my watchlist. I have not been convinced, I've been worn down to the point of dispair. Non-free content must meet our non-free content criteria. I implore anyone with any sense, especially the person who closes this discussion, to ignore anyone who says anything even remotely like the opposite. And, seeing as there's been plenty of assumptions of bad faith about my intention, I'm not going to be polite- there has clearly been canvassing here- closer, please take that into account. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if we were to accept that the image fails NFCC #8 (or #1), that is a rule and like all others it may be ignored if the encyclopedia is improved in the ignoring. The use of the image is, from a legal standpoint, appropriate under fair use doctrines, even if you don't agree that it meets all ten of our strict conditions. –xeno^talk 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I may inject my 2 cents here, I disagree that WP:NFCC is allowed to fall under WP:IAR. I think this because of the following line: "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects" which can be seen here. I could be wrong though.--Rockfang (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That statement applies to the linked page. If our use of the image is acceptable per the linked page and fair use generally, but not acceptable per our local and more restrictive guidelines, and the use improves the encyclopedia, it is my opinion that we may ignore the local rule. Of course, I still think the image meets the non-free content criteria, regardless. –xeno^talk 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I apologise. I should have clarified my statement better. That licensing policy says "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Our EDP here is WP:NFCC. If we use IAR on the NFCC, then I think we are using IAR on the Wikimedia Foundation Policy which we cannot do.--Rockfang (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, as long as our use still meets the global policy generally (I haven't come across a free image that serves the same educational purpose), we can ignore some of our more restrictive local rules in the interests of improving the encyclopedia. This is an academic debate in any case, as the use of the image under discussion meets all ten NFCC (imo). –xeno^talk 21:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replying only to J Milburn's comment about canvassing; it may be legitimate to ask how I came to this discussion, since I rarely participate in FFD. The answer is that this debate is the subject of a thread on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SlimVirgin and others. Per above. I just fail to see any reason that would justify deleting this image. I'm not convinced by any arguments in favor of deletion. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. (per SlimVirgin and others) Consensus holds more sway in some realms than in other realms. Were the issue one of text, and failure to find support in sources for text in question, consensus should be understood to have limited ability to overcome the problem of inadequate sourcing. But the question of images as concerns fair use imagery and the justification thereof, is different. Images have intangible qualities that text tends to have less of. There are cliches to attest to this. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. More apropos to this discussion consider the cliche that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly when evaluating imagery we are squarely in the realm of subjective judgements. You can't just say, "how about this one, instead of that one?" Consensus really matters when evaluating imagery. This is not to say that reasons need not be articulated for choices for and against individual images. We can and we should discuss why we want to see certain holocaust images in an article and conversely why some of us might feel that an image should not be used, especially if using it requires utilizing the fair use exclusion. But getting back to my central thought—holocaust imagery is going to be chosen by editors wishing to strengthen an article on that subject on such qualities as pathos. Pathos is not going to be detectable except by personal sensibilities. Consensus as to what contributes to an emotion-laden article such as the holocaust is going to be a subjective endeavor. Consensus matters more here than in a question involving questionable or poorly sourced text. I'm not meaning to go off on a tangent but consensus should be understood to have limited applicability when sourcing for text to be included in an article is at question. But consensus really matters when choosing photographs or other purely visual imagery. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is easily replaceable by text. Masem has a possible candidate above. The image fails NFCC #1 and as such, should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockfang—It important to be specific. I am an artist. And I study art. Visual images, including photographs, lend themselves to verbal exploration. If we are ever to address and tackle the topic at hand, we have to talk about the image. It is good to have the image at hand. Refer to it (the actual image) while you are writing (whether you wish the image to be kept or deleted). I argue for the image to be kept. My reasoning: Note the body language conveying the heartiness of the laughing. All the prominent figures facing the camera are caught in action. This is a "good" photograph, however horrible it may be. There are 5 men prominently in the foreground, facing the camera. They are very clearly "tormenters." This is not something that requires words. That is what a good image is about—a good image transcends words. Note the enjoyment evident in the body language of the five tormenters. Note the cruelty and animation in the standing figure closest to the man on the ground. Not only is his face aglow in a bright grin, but all four of his limbs are in positions other than at rest. His body is bent at the waist. This conveys a readiness to deliver another blow to the poor helpless man on the ground. You have to analyze imagery. It is not enough to say something is iconic. Nor do I pretend that I have the final word on the significance or insignificance of this image, or its relative importance to our article. But when dealing with images you must use words to address specifics. Many people overlook this. I welcome hearing from those telling us that this image is not worthy of being kept in our article. But I implore you—please speak specifically about the individual photo in what it conveys (or fails to convey). Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The policy's words ("can be replaced by text"), if they are understood literally, can be applied to all images without exception. Although the image itself can be described verbally, the non-verbal emotional load it carries may be lost. Therefore, the Rockfang's argument is applicable only to those images which carry no or little emotional or other non-verbal messages. That does not work in our case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus Stop: I read your reply to my post and I think you proved my point that the image is replaceable by text. You described at least part of the image. And quite well I may add.--Rockfang (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockfang—In practical terms one cannot so simply replace an image with words. The wording I used to describe the image would not have any practicable way of weaving into the article. That is what is encapsulated in such pithy statements as "a picture is worth a thousand words." And I have not even begun to scratch the surface of such an image. Each figure can be described in words. Are you going to put all that in the article? Each of the "tormenters" bear a relation to one another. Body language strongly bears this out. Police analyzing grainy footage from surveillance cameras (or still photos) can derive a lot of information from a lot details conveyed by a lot of visual cues. No—you cannot facilely say you will replace an image with words. Images have purposes. What we are doing, I think, is evaluating relative merits of images. My central exhortation to you was to address the actual image itself. Say why you disagree that this particular image is an image worth keeping in our article. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course every image can be replaced by words - that's the whole point of alt text for images. The question is if the visual image is necessary to understand the article moreso than text alone, which is our NFCC#8 requirement; this is a consideration for any image. Here, there's no markings on the soldiers or the person on the ground, there's no obvious sign this is from that period of history save for the aging of the photo. (DISCLAIMER: I am sure Holocaust did happen; I am not in any way trying to dispute this). I've seen that same type of image from any movie about prisons downplayed by violent guards, and I see nothing that most people would not be able to envision if told "it is an image of a guy with ragged clothing on the ground surrounded by guards smiling at his suffering". There's nothing special that a visual reference helps with, and thus fails NFCC#8. If it was a more unique aspect of mistreatment that most people would not be able to envision, I could see it meeting NFCC#8; that's been shown through several examples of other free images above. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem—where in an article would it say, "…it is an image of a guy with ragged clothing on the ground surrounded by guards smiling at his suffering"? Do we usually talk about images in the middle of articles? I mean, if the photograph were not in the article, what occasion would there be to describe it? A photograph is a different sort of entity than text, yet photographs and text can function together, working toward the goal of a good article. You say, "If it was a more unique aspect of mistreatment that most people would not be able to envision, I could see it meeting NFCC#8; that's been shown through several examples of other free images above." Mistreatment is unusual. We don't encounter mistreatment on a daily basis. In the same vein of thought, why would we be interested in a "unique aspect" of mistreatment? Is that what we are trying to document—the many varieties of mistreatment? (Being slightly facetious.) No—we are trying to document, in our use of photographs, something that words can't approximate. This is not only true of the holocaust. If there were photographs of the genocide in Rwanda it would be very important to present them. The passion of the breakdown of normalcy escapes words. Photographs do what text can't do, and text does what photographs can't do, and there is also an area of overlap. But they are different sorts of entities—text and photographs. Also, there are incidental elements that photographs introduce. We are spanning 2010 to 1945. Clothing styles, automobiles, architecture. This may seem besides the point—but the photographs introduce the texture that the text of the article simply will not supply. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, it's precisely because this is a random image that it is compelling. There are many to choose from and the vast majority will be unverifiable. There weren't exactly a whole lot of accredited photographers out there getting model releases from everyone involved. The use of this image is not trying to push a point that isn't very solidly backed up by those who suffered. It's getting into quite hair-splitting territory to debate whether this exact image depicts any one accurate and precise historical event. It's just reality. Perhaps our guidelines are not all that well drawn up, but then I would say "change the guidelines" - though I can't pin my finger on it precisely... :( Franamax (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a random and mundane image because there is nothing identifible about the participants: obviously there's men in a rather generic uniform and a man in tattered clothes. If I squint, that could be a still from the Shawshank Redemeption or even an old silent comedy with pratfalls (and no, please, I'm not trying to trivialize the horror) And I have a hard time that people cannot envision what the photo shows with the words "For their own enjoyment,Nazi guards would torment prisoners". We're trying to serve two goals here: one is demonstrated the verifiable evidence of cruelity and genocide against the Jews, and we are trying to minimize non-free content on WP. To that end, an image that seems to provide no significant content and difficult to understand what is going on is not meeting either of them. Instead, the focus should be on image that show something that clearly shows the brutality and hostility of the Nazi forces against the Jews; this image fails to do that. On the other hand, an image that is more striking and less common, even if non-free, would be a better replacement for this; several possibilities have been offered above. The only way I feel that this specific image could be justified is if it were like the flag raising of Iwo Jimo, in which the photo itself was significantly discussed. I cannot see why File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg both a free image and a proven historically significant one per Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, cannot be used here instead, providing even a darker, more emotionally compelling image, meeting both goals that this current image fails to do. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem—you say, "obviously there's men in a rather generic uniform and a man in tattered clothes." That is what the Holocaust was about. Did everyone wear uniforms? No. The Holocaust was a web of brutality. (You thought this was a web of brutality.) Neighbors murdered neighbors who they had lived with all their lives. Perhaps you haven't read "The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders," by Ernst Klee (Editor), Willi Dressen (Editor), Volker Riess (Editor), Hugh Trevor-Roper (Foreword). Bus stop (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not dismissing those concerns, but I am struggling with them mightily. Sure, it's hard to tell what's going on, as I noted below, could be a street busker doing a little routine. The provenance is Yad Vashem though, and the image use is not trying to push any POV beyond what mainstream though commonly accepts as true history. The Ghetto image you mention is the one out of all the candidates presented here that I did really consider as an alternate, because it's just plain bloody heartbreaking to look at. But it's from the uprising, which even in those tortured times was a "special event" - I could come up with some twisted logic that it was actually just a normal policing action against civilians who were disobeying martial law. The value of the image in question is that it deonstrates random acts of brutality, not just the big ones. You're absolutely right that we have no idea what is actually going on - but that to me is precisely the point. That is exactly what other people saw happening and walked away from, every day. Walked away because they didn't want to end up getting their head kicked on the street too. How else can that be conveyed, except with the complete absence of any context or justification? I'm not saying this is a slam-dunk, and if I saw a good free alternative I would grab it. But the image "tells a story" as it is currently used, so I'm not willing to countenance dismissing it on the terms you moot. They are good terms and I respect your reasoning, NFCC as written probably says "delete" very clearly - but I disagree, I think the image has unique value the way it is being used. Franamax (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I'm seeing something here that can be built on to either select a better picture or boost the rationale to use here. I'm far from any expertise in the Holocaust so I can't help on the source, but both BusStop and Franamax suggest that a common aspect of the Holocaust was that such treatment of Jews was commonplace, happened with both anonymity and apathy despite the horrors of this. So now, if I go to the section this pictures is in, "Early measures in German occupied Poland", in The Holocaust, it would be extremely helpful towards NFCC#8 and to comprehension to explain this aspect the above two statements made. Maybe this is made in one of the linked articles from that section already, I dunno. But bring it into here, and then boost that rationale on the image to support it. In this light, there might be another image that shows a Jew being mistreated by the Nazis with bystanders completely ignoring that that would even better support this statement, but even without a different image, boosting the language to talk about the day-to-day conditions would clearly satisfy my own NFCC concerns. Text with that picture makes a much more potent statement that just the picture alone. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Oppose deletion per multiple arguments presented above(vital historic image, and other reasons).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm leaving this for the closing admin. J Milburn has said there has been canvassing. Just to clarify, I posted a request for fresh eyes earlier today to AN/I [3] and the village pump. [4] I did that because I was concerned about the tone of the discussion, and I wanted broader input. I was going to leave it at that, but then I saw J Milburn posted about it to the non-free image page. [5] I was worried in case that post attracted people with strong views about non-free images. I therefore also posted to wikiproject history [6] and wikiproject Jewish history. [7] If there are other wikiprojects whose views are needed for balance, I have no problem if someone posts elsewhere about it too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is called canvassing. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep—what do you perceive of as being canvassing? I find at WP:CANVAS:

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

I also find at WP:CANVAS:

"Appropriate notification:"

"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:"

"The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion."

"A central location, such as the Village pump, or other relevant noticeboards, if the discussion is regarding something which may have a wide impact, such as policies or guidelines."

I don't see any notification that would not be "appropriate" according to WP:CANVAS. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read CANVAS, even completely. You seem to have read only the cherries you picked for here.

SV's first posts at ANI and Village Pump were at the wrong place (why going to ANI at all?). Only later SV posted at some WikiProjeect or community page. The reason: "I was worried in case that post [at WP:NONFREE] attracted people with strong views about non-free images." (that post was at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Who could have expected that?). Only then came the more to the point posts by SV (with less noise). But with the motive, written here: Strong views from NONFREE-editors are worrying SV. So the string of posts is not at the appropriate places.

Now about the content of these posts: there was no neutral like "there is a discussion going on about ...". They were partisan. Which, as CANVAS says, is not the way to do it. The addition here that views are needed for balance -- Is this a subliminal !vote request?

Also, SV started using names and drama there, which easily distracted SV and others from the neutral content and arguments. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy: posting in the wrong places and writing there partisan & noisy: not the way to canvas. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep—the locations in which notifications were posted are all fine. There would not be likely to be found at any of those locations people taking one position or another on this topic. As far as the language used in the notifications, I think it alluded to a special quality in this discussion involving genocide. You may not agree, but I would assert that an ingredient in this discussion is the special power photography has to make the unreal real. Thus any notification should apprise the reader of that dimension of the discussion underway. I don't see any problem at all with the language used. It is not "partisan." It includes reference to the nature of this particular discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly what you write is all in there. But there was more in there, before I perceived anything. Strange you did not notice that.

1. Why go to ANI with Fair-use_images_of_the_Holocaust in the first place? No admin issue of involvement asked. As the closing admin wrote: "There's nothing to do at this point. [...] amount of hyperbole [...]".

2. Opening that ANI, SV wrote: Very few have joined in the discussion, so some fresh eyes would be greatly appreciated. Content-discussion at ANI?

3. Still, that same ANI, SV referred to two editors by name and link, without notifying editor one nor two (hey, not even a note on this thread).

4. At the Village pump (misc) there was the same post (copypaste - how page-specific is that?). My points 1 and 3 about ANI also go for the Village pump edits.

5. Only after I noted SV's eh, poor representation of the discussion here, in their next post SV did change the talk, but still looked for opposing "opinions" (I know, in itself nothing wrong with that phrase. But we are in the context here). Alas, the second one has more copypaste of the earlier problems.

6. Right in this comment, SV clearly describes their motives: "I was concerned about the tone of the discussion, and I wanted broader input" -- this by the editor who "worried [an opponent's] post attracted people with strong views about non-free images". Being afraid of "strong views" in a discussion -- yeah, right. Also, this editor wrote in this thread (note the personalised style re arguments): "I can only ask that you don't focus on the Holocaust." ".. except that you personally don't understand why it's being used", "What you're doing here is very POINTy, [editor], and you're not making yourself look good, if you care about that" "[Editor], please recall what happened when you tried to defend pedophiles editing Wikipedia". Sure the way to keep a talk into the right tone, SV. Now, motivations are irrelevant to the factual result of behaviour, but they do ondermine anyones claim of just arguing, and of canvassing "neutral" and "not partisan". -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep generally per SV and xeno. Images have a power to "shock the conscience" far beyond what mere words can do. These were shocking crimes, unconscionable for most reasonable persons. The image demonstrates a reality of everyday life, I see no free alternatives presented here that show how you could be walking down the street and get your head kicked in just for being alive. We could argue all day about whether that's really a Jewish or gay person on the ground or whether it's a busker doing a funny routine. Accounts are sketchy (because most of the people were killed) but there seems no doubt that this is the kind of thing that happened, every day. Perhaps the article should discuss this daily humiliation proximate to the image and perhps the rationale should stress more that this is just a random image, not one of any particular historical event. Nevertheless, I find its use compelling and of encyclopedic value - thus essential to an understanding of the topic. If a free alternative exists that can provide the same value, then use it instead. Otherwise, use this one. Franamax (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Oppose deletion (strongly) per User:Yad Vashem, and User:SlimVirgin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem. I am sure every Holocaust photo can be described by the words: "Some bad guys are doing something bad with some other guys". However, these words do not transmit emotions and other non-verbal information. And it cannot be done by words, not because the words cannot transmit that, but because the language needed for that is not encyclopaedic. That is why the photo should be used.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true in that every Holocaust picture could be reduced down. To get as close to a text replacement, you'd need to describe actions going on in the photo, and the ones that show dead bodies, Jews forced at gunpoint, and hanging would all have apt descriptions. My point here is that that picture, taken out of content, carries almost no emotional context (the type of stuff we can't express in words). You could put that picture on bullying without any mention where it came from, and it wouldn't look at all out of place. This is why I've come to suggest two things: either a picture where there is clearly a more drastic action being done on the Jews (such as being led at gunpoint or being hung) is used to show the crulity, or as explained above, that the article describe the anonymity and apathy of the apparent-commonplace practice of tormenting Jews on a daily basis by Nazi soldiers, to strengthen the aspects of that photo that can't otherwise easily be placed in text. Right now there's no strong connection beyond that we know the camps were not kind to the Jews, but that seems to be able to be improved. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Oppose deletion Per SV--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments.
  1. We apparently don't know who took this photo or what the actual copyright status is, and apparently no one here is willing or able to find this information anywhere. The best information we have is that Yad Vashem claims "all rights reserved." Has anyone attempted to contact Yad Vashem to ask if they would be willing to release their rights to this photo under a free license? If they are willing to do that, then this whole discussion and its associated drama would be over.
  2. Many of the editors in favor of keeping this image argue that it is important to show German officials smiling while mistreating Jews. At the risk of being called a nasty name, I will ask whether we have sources we can cite that indicate this kind of event was indeed common, typical, or significant during the Holocaust, rather than a rare occurrence that happened to be captured in a single photograph. If indeed it is significant, it seems to me that we should be able to say something meaningful about it in the article text—more than just "German policemen tormenting a Jew in Rzeszów, Poland" in the image caption. (It also seems to me that if it was significant we should be able to find more than one photograph in existence documenting it—but who knows, maybe all of the other photographs have been destroyed, I don't know.) If "German officials smiling while mistreating Jews" was not itself a significant occurrence, and this photo serves to illustrate a broader type of abusive treatment of Jews, then I think we have established that there are alternative photographs that could equally well be used. —Bkell (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Text alone cannot convey to the reader what this particular image does. If there's no free alternative, attempts should be made to find the source - not delete it. It should remain as a FU image with the appropriate tags. Creative "twists" of NFCC#1 and #8 in a possible POV issue: I'm not a fan. And this is certainly not directed at any editor in particular: I'm just saying... Doc9871 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I've been involved with J Milburn before, so I know he takes copyright quite seriously. There are plenty of non-free images available, no-one has adressed the issue of why this is different from the free alternatives. There seems to have been canvassed quite a bit at obviously biased fora turning this into a example of "too many cooks messes up the debate". I suspect closing admin will close as no consensus. IMO copyrighted material should be deleted per default if there's no consensus for its use, for the sake of wikipedia it's better to err on the side of caution with copyright. Sandman888 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Sandman888—you say that, "…he takes copyright quite seriously." Copyright allows for fair use. You say, "…no-one has adressed the issue of 'why this is different' from the free alternatives." Actually I addressed the qualities that make this a very good photograph. I spoke specifically of what is depicted in the photograph and I invited counter-discussion if available. I think little has been said as to why this is not a photograph that should be used under the fair use provision. Just as photos provide qualities that may not be able to be captured by words, so too are decisions concerning imagery heavily dependent on consensus. That is because these decisions have a large subjective component to them. I think the onus is equally on someone such as yourself to articulate why the photograph under consideration is not a very good choice. Copyright is only one factor, despite the importance of copyright as a consideration. Pictures are not simply interchangeable. They are entities that are sometimes unique and sometimes complex and therefore we should be articulating their pros and cons. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thread this reply in two because it makes it clearer. 1. There is no specific comment on the picture in the article itself indicating that this is an iconic picture in the history of Jewish repression or indeed an important picture at all, this article is somewhat of a gallery of non-free content. "I think the onus is equally on someone such as yourself" no, as the Non-free content criteria states: the wish is "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", thus the onus clearly is on those in favour of non-free content. You then speak of the ontological nature of pictures and your philosophy seem to be in favour of any pictures. Sandman888 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandman888 - Votes to keep the image are now over 2:1 in favor of keep. That is hardly closable as "No consensus". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should remind you that this is not a popular poll, but a discussion based on the strength of the arguments. Several of the votes are also the result of some canvassing which does not seem proper. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of the arguments against keeping this image don't really convince me at all, and easily over 50% of the editors here seem similarly unconvinced. "No consensus" would be more of a "no-vote" or a "tie" - it's not even close. You mentioned it, my friend, not me :> BTW: does anyone really actually doubt that this image was taken by someone in the Nazi regime? There is zero chance of the NFCC #2 not being met: probably the most important thing to consider when deleting non-free images. So arguments in favor of deletion should stick to the same #1, #3 and #8 that at least I usually see. It's a pity that #10 gets brought up so rarely... Doc9871 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Howcheng. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I find SV's analysis persuasive. We clearly need an image to illustrate this aspect of the article. Although Wikipedia is not specifically a holocaust memorial (we are a repository of all things), the principal of the memorialists seems relevant here: these images are testaments to the inhuman horrors, things people are inclined not to believe unless they see them directly. Photos are more effective than words at conveying the gravity and complexity of an atrocity like this. The argument that text alone could adequately make the point is belied by the strength and significance of this particular image. If it adds so little to the holocaust, why is it such a powerful photo? Why is it so well known? It might be useful to add to the caption a sourced comment about the image itself and its significance (I think it's a pretty well-known photo), but beyond that it speaks for itself. Because of the unique meaning and circumstances of the holocaust it is not likely that we will find free alternatives. None proposed so far are nearly as effective.- Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-free image. The same information can be presented in a free means. This particular image does not significantly increase the readers' understanding. The historic image tag is inappropriate since the image itself is not the subject of discussion. Does anyone ever read that tag before using it? Jay32183 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the case of genocide nothing takes the place of concrete imagery. Words do not ever supplant imagery. That is why you have the phrase "seeing is believing." One does not believe words but one believes images. Yes, I know, images can be manipulated. But the mind does not work with constant cognizance of that. We are much more impressed by what we can see, than by the abstract conveyance of information by written language. I certainly disagree that "The same information can be presented in a free means." This is not "information" in the usual sense. The image in question is the difference between knowing something and really knowing something. I know that the Holocaust took place. But only when I see a powerful image such as this one do I really know the Holocaust took place. These are perceptual factors. Nor do I think there should be a requirement that the image be a "subject of discussion." What would the commentary in the article say, "In this incident the man was kicked"? In millions of such separate incidents genocide unfolded. Genocide on a mass scale needs the best documentation available. That is the conveyance of information despite the mind's natural inclination to not believe. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some comments on the Jay32183's post.

Re: "Non-free image" Correct. However, the dispute is not about that indisputable thing, but about the question if this non-free image can be used.

Re: "The same information can be presented in a free means" Too general. Please, demonstrate, how can that be done, and by which "free means". In addition, please, remember that the policy clearly tells not about informational purposes of the non-free images, but about encyclopaedic, or educational purposes. "Education" cannot be reduced to just "informing".

Re: "This particular image does not significantly increase the readers' understanding." Again, too general. Please, explain, why it doesn't?

Re: "The historic image tag is inappropriate since the image itself is not the subject of discussion." What is, in your opinion, a subject of the discussion.

Re: "Does anyone ever read that tag before using it?" Yes, the tag states that the photo depicts a historical event that cannot be (hopefully) reproduced. What concrete objections do you have against that?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2010 (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: speedy delete under F8, moved to Commons as File:Jim Patterson Stadium, 3rd Street view.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 1957.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Censusdata (notify | contribs | uploads).

• This is a photo of Jim Patterson Stadium in Louisville, Kentucky, viewed from 3rd Street. Unfortunately it is a low-resolution photo that really does not show much of the stadium at all—most of the photo is just grass and parked cars, with a bit of the stadium in the background. There are no problems with the copyright or licensing status of this image; if it is decided to keep this image, it should be moved to the Commons under a better file name. —Bkell (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons. –xeno^talk 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons, rename, and possibly crop. PhilKnight (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2010 (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: speedy delete under F8, moved to Commons as File:Louisville Medical Tower.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 1371.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Rod Foster (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused photo of the Medical Research Tower at the University of Louisville. This image seems to have been superseded by File:ULMedTower.jpg, which is a better photo of the tower. If this image is kept, it should be moved to the Commons under a better file name. —Bkell (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons. –xeno^talk 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons and rename. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (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: speedy delete under F8, moved to Commons as File:Tree-lined street in Savannah, Georgia.jpg. — ξ^xplicit 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 876.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Censusdata (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused photo of a road. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This is apparently a tree-lined street in Savannah, Georgia [8]. I am still of the opinion that it is not particularly useful here. —Bkell (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons. –xeno^talk 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons and rename. PhilKnight (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ottercreek.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bill Lumbergh (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Photo of Otter Creek Park near Louisville, Kentucky. The summary claims, "Image obtained from park's official web site, which is maintained by a government agency, thus not subject to copyright," but this is erroneous reasoning—not all works of all government agencies are in the public domain. It is tagged as non-free but has no rationale. It is easily replaceable, so it fails WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:KCCLIVESTUDIO1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by ONLINEUKNEWS (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:KCCLIVESTUDIO2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by ONLINEUKNEWS (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Troijhfeshgkjkds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by ONLINEUKNEWS (notify | contribs | uploads).

• At one time these were likely meant for use in User talk:ONLINEUKNEWS and Stephen Colduck. Orphans and unused. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (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: deleted by Courcelles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaulTracyCleveland.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Gorak (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Non-free image used in Paul Tracy to show that "Paul drove for Team KOOL Green from 1998–2002." This information is easily conveyed by free text, and the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and would not "be detrimental to that understanding" if removed, so the use of this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (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: rather naughty to close an FFD that I commented in, but the file has now been moved to Commons and will be deleted when someone gets round to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7hayes-amy2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Moeh1246 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused. Subject is the uploader, image taken by their father. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hayes) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well, if this Amy Beth Hayes is the same person, we could use it in her article. There's pics at her IMDB entry, but I can't tell if it's the same woman or not. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which Amy Hayes? This one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hayes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I added a note to the nom. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this isn't a home for orphaned images here, the picture should either be deleted or moved to Wikimedia Commons, which really is a home for little lost images. It is at least conceivable that this image might be useful in some vaguely educational context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2010 (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: Withdrawn. —Bkell (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture 1998.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Censusdata (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused photo of a house, probably somewhere in Kentucky (based on the uploader's contributions), but with no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn: I now see that it was once used in the Louisville, Kentucky article [9] with the caption, "The city's "Old Louisville" neighborhood is filled with Victorian era mansions." —Bkell (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (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: speedily deleted per WP:CSD#F9. –xeno^talk 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7uu 010.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Eoghan888 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Unused, Subject to personal opinion - is this really of any use? I mean outside of an article on blurry images? If consensus says it is than lets ((mtc)). Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a photo of Lord of the Rings on TV; if that's the case it's not free and needs to go, but in any case the image is so poor it does not aid understanding of the subject and is of little use. Nev1 (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Tis. –xeno^talk 14:38, 16 September 2010 (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: deleted by Courcelles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Very Lunch Club Christmas Photo DSC00328.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads).

File:Erin Perciante P1010506.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Katherine Gardner New Pics 077.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Dave Baird New Pics 049.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Megan Balko FH010027.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Cory Smith dscoo295.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Andrew DSC00290.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by User:Abaltes (notify | contribs | uploads)

• This is a series of images, all unused. They seem like personal photos, I see no encyclopedic use for them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the assessment of these being personal photographs with no value to the encyclopedia. Doc9871 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2010 (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 per WP:CSD#F1 Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kroepke 1895.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jfg284 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Redundant to File:Hannover Georgstraße mit Theater (um 1895).jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2010 (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: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thermodynamic schools (connection diagram) 1000x920.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Libb Thims (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Redundant to commons image File:Thermodynamic schools (connection diagram) 1000x920.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since there are no references given, the connections shown are essentially the uploader's unreferenced opinons. Delete as OR, POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've nominated the Commons image for deletion for the same reasons, and have removed the image from the Thermodynamics article and talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2010 (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.