Unused, don't accomplish anything that plain text would not do as well or better, and the text they do have is a mish-mash of French and English. --CaerwineCaer’s whines 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete – plain text would work better if we ever need something like this. —
Remember the dot(
talk) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Agree with above, plus, though trivial, it's actually a mix of English and
Catalan.
Deg2800 (
talk) 14:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - It was used
here Most of the language is
Catalan. It's an iso code, and a prosecuted cultural sign of Catalan culture. If there's no freedom here to show it, where? --
Paco✉ 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But why isn't it currently used in any Wikipedia pages?
Badagnani (
talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Not to mention that those two characters are considered today to be mistakes inherited by Unicode from a legacy encoding made without input from Catalans, so I hardly call "Ŀ" a sign of Catalan culture. "L·" perhaps, but it's use in Catalan is dealt with already in the article about "
·" CaerwineCaer’s whines 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
uploader seems to have lots of copyright troubles and marked it his but gave a message board as the source
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Copyright violation - Scan of a school portrait
Nv8200ptalk 03:59, 8 February 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as one of many such images uploaded by Dark Horse King. I've nominated the rest of these
below. CaerwineCaer’s whines 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The picture is
Santana Moss, which doesn't currently have a photo. I don't know if this one is worth using, though. --
B (
talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
There is no source or author information. The uploader says it is in the public domain, however it looks like a recent, professionally shot image. Probably this is a case in which other sites are using the image, so it was assumed to be free.
Kla’quot (
talk |
contribs) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have been told by someone who used it that the photo is a still from a film of an orca bull charging up on the beach and grabbing and tossing around a seal lion pup (which escaped) and that the photo has been in the public domain for many years.
Bobisbob (
talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think think you could be right about it being from a film. It looks to me like an image from a BBC TV series narrated by David Attenborough. I am not sure which series but it could be the Living Planet. If so it will still be in copyright and not public domain.
Probably Heisenberg (
talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: The image is from the BBC´s living Planet series where Orca´s from four areas of the world are presented - Tysfjord Norway, Northern New zealand, Johnstone Straights and Punte Del Norte In Patagonia. As such, the image is copyrighted and not under public domain.
SammytheSeal (
talk) 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Further discussion : Unless the website Bobisbob quotes as having given permission to use the image via CC can show provenence to the copyright of the image, it should be removed. Copyright of imagery from the BBC Living planet series remains with the BBC NHU.
SammytheSeal (
talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 uploader has apparently confused Wikipedia with an image hosting site. This is one of a large number of such images which are unused, except for one or two he is using on his user page. --CaerwineCaer’s whines 05:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Mike. Majorly (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete but let him keep one or two, as per usual practice.
Nick (
talk) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (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.
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned.
BJBot (
talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Commons showing through. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned.
BJBot (
talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I don't know what the problem is. I see no reason why the photo should be deleted. It was discussed about a year ago, and no one has challenged it since then.--
Gilabrand (
talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (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.
No article on the book, no discussion of the book in the
Zell Miller article in which it is used.
скоморохъ 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
a similar drawing could be produced by a wikipedian, using this as a source. it is not necessary to use a non-free image to show what waterboarding looks like.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a unique image and not easily replaceable. Lawrence §
t/
e 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It could be replaced if a Wikipedian drew a similar image. It is not being used to illustrate any specific waterboarding currently, it is being used to illustrate what waterboarding looks like generally in the upper right corner of
Waterboarding and
enhanced interrogation technique.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
And since the definition of waterboaring is contested, then that would open the door to an Original Research war. This image is uncontested as a depiction of waterboarding, and so it's irreplaceable at this time. Lawrence §
t/
e 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Can we not avoid original research by simply drawing a very similar image?
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
As the present photograph is acceptable under fair use, as it is a historic image and thus irreplaceable, what is the benefit to Wikipedia of replacing it? Lawrence §
t/
e 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The same benefit as the whole idea of having a free encyclopedia--that if we create a free image to replace it, that image can be reused and distributed by anyone without any copyright problems.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's clear that the primary reason
Vann Nath painted this was to ensure that the activities that transpired in the
Tuol Sleng Prison during the
Khmer Rouge regime would be known, both in Cambodia and in the world. As such, this photograph of his painting is absolutely valuable, necessary, and irreplaceable--and (though he is not in good health), I am sure Nath would agree.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't doubt that, but Wikipedia's mission is to make free information available to the world. Since we are using this image instead of creating our own, there are no free images of waterboarding anywhere. See my compromise proposal below.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Elian Gonzalez and the
Kent State shootings have similarly irreplaceable, historically important fair use images. Images of actual waterboarding are extremely rare, and the
Vann Nath image is similarly irreplaceable.
Badagnani (
talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But this article is not about one historical instance of waterboarding, it's about the practice as a whole. There's no dispute about what waterboarding looks like, which is what the top image is meant to show. We don't need to use a copyrighted image when we have multiple historical photos and paintings that can be used as sources for an accurate original image.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This article includes a section on the historical uses of waterboarding.
(Hypnosadist) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The painting is displayed in a torture museum in Cambodia and was likely painted by a Cambodian. These facts about the painting and the photograph convey extra information and provide context about the history and use of waterboarding beyond the mere depiction of waterboarding itself. While other depictions might augment the understanding of waterboarding, they could not substitute for the specific context that this particular image provides.
Turantual (
talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - The image is an irreplaceable depiction of waterboarding, as practiced by the Khmer Rouge, and no other similar depiction is available. An image drawn by a Wikipedian would not have the authenticity of this painting, actually painted by one of the half-dozen or so survivors of Cambodia's most notorious Khmer Rouge prison, where waterboarding was routinely practiced.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But because we use this image instead of using free image (in addition or instead), there is no free image of waterboarding that can be reused elsewhere.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion gone overboard. A drawing pales in comparison to an actual photo.
R. Baley (
talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Um, this is a painting, not a photo.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's a photograph of a painting. Lawrence §
t/
e 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. If anything, it needs a better fair use rationale. But as a unique piece of art it obviously is irreplaceable.--
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Compromise proposal? I nominated this image because I think it is currently being used improperly, not to show waterboarding in a certain time and place, but to show waterboarding generally. We also have a photo of waterboarding during the Vietnam War (
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg) that is linked in the article as another historical source about what this looks like. Could someone more artistically talented than me be recruited to draw a general picture for the top right of
Waterboarding and
Enhanced interrogation technique, using these two images as sources, and we could move this painting down to accompany the Tuol Sleng section? (Where I think it would be appropriate.)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Followup: I have asked User:Rama to do an illustration. (S/he has done great line drawings of people elsewhere in the encyclopedia.) I'm currently waiting for a response.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose compromise proposal. A Wikipedia-drawn facsimile of an irreplaceable, historically important image of actual waterboarding is most unsatisfactory at best.
Badagnani (
talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep This painting is an ACTUAL historical primary source, a line drawing is just not the same.
(Hypnosadist) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Everything
Badagnani has already said, more eloquently than I could. If
Calliopejen1 is so keen to have a completely PD drawing, then produce that as well. I see no conflict there.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 01:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is an image from a torture museum in Cambodia, giving unique historical insight and veracity not easily replicated with a drawing by a wikipedian. henrik•
talk 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
IDEA This painting was created by a survivor of Khmer Rouge so that their crimes would be recorded for ever. It hangs on public display in Cambodias Holocaust museum so the crimes of the Khmer Rouge could be recorded for ever. I think if we ask them nicely they will let us have use of this image so that the crimes of the khmer rouge can be recorded forever.
(Hypnosadist) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - The museum is likely not "wired" for email. I saw Nath interviewed briefly on an episode of Globe Trekker recently (which was probably filmed a couple of years ago). I assume he still lives near there. But even if we had someone go there to meet him and ask for the use of a photo of his painting, I'm sure he'd say, "Do whatever you want with it," then explain the reason why he painted it and placed it on display in the museum in the first place (so that the world would know what happened there). We have to be thoughtful and reasonable in everything we do.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
strong keep per Badagnani, and we need to find a way to curb this rampant, unwarranted image paranoia.
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (
talk) 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - We have such a way; it is called
WP:SNOW.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Spot-on nomination. I could see this image being used if accompanied by sourced critical commentary of the specific event at the
Tuol Sleng article or as an example of the art style and human rights activism of
Vann Nath, but there is no question that its current usage at
waterboarding satisfies the
Wikipedia definition of replaceability. A free license sketch or diagram of the waterboarding apparatus would be far more informative, you could even go as far as to appropriate
this free photo to illustrate the basic concept. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
That picture is of a weights bench and cement mixer, any sources to say those are used to waterboard?
(Hypnosadist) 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Your insistence on using primary sources for procuring illustrations would eliminate nearly all user-generated media from Wikipedia. At some point you're just arguing that
ceci n'est pas une pipe. That said, the flickr link is indeed a horrible substitute (even though a weight bench and cement mixer could suffice for a waterboarding apparatus). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
When we have a high quality primary source it should be used in preference to user-generated media. One has genuine histroical notability the other is made up by some-one who has never been waterboarded, seen it happen and is not a notable person in thier own right.
(Hypnosadist) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
strong keep and opposition to compromise This is an image that holds authority, unlike a depiction by someone that's never seen it occur. It's valid under fair use and in my opinion removing it or replacing it with a non-authoritative drawing would damage the article.
82.27.27.18 (
talk) 11:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The image itself seems to adequately fulfill all the requirements of "fair use" and it not only has significance as an illustrative tool but it's artistic significance conveys a level of truth and meaning that would be missing in a graphic produced by an anonymous WP contributor.
Geeman (
talk) 01:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. No inherent
WP:NFCC problem as far as I can see, and is a virtually unmissable way to clarify the topic at hand. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 09:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep and Opposition to Compromise This is historically important, and contains vastly more communicative value than a novel drawing can ever contain. Moreover, it is free to use, according to the photographer, so the compromise is pointless.
Aminorex (
talk) 15:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but suggest perhaps tweaking the brightness and contrast for visibility. ~
UBeR (
talk) 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete absolutely. This is not a historical photo, it's a non-free photo of a generic artwork. It is completely replacable, and there is no possible fair use rationale. ➪
HiDrNick! 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
"This is not a historical photo" No what is in the photo (the painting) is of historical importance. "generic artwork" No this is a piece of art by someone who was waterboarded on that very piece of equipment depicted. Read
Vann Nath.
(Hypnosadist) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
No,
Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg is a historical photo that qualifies for fair use under the policies of Wikipedia. It is irreplacable. That fact that the artist was himself tortured in this manner doesn't deminish his copyright under the law. We can find a free substitute. ➪
HiDrNick! 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
And if an admin would contact him you could get his permision, he gave the picture to the Cambodian holocaust museum to promote the knowledge of these events. Its freely displayed there by the now owners.
(Hypnosadist) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
As for the historical nature of this event, in Vann Naths prison camp S-21 14,000 people entered, 7 Left! That makes Tianamen square look like the small meaningless political demo. This was part of the mass-murder of over two million people. Thats historical notability.
(Hypnosadist) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. At this point in time, I believe this image is not replaceable with a free image. Any drawing would either be a derivative or original research. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:06, 17 February 2008 (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.
given san francisco's age (not a particularly old city), this statue is probably copyrighted
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google quickly yields
this page, according to which the statue has been erected in 1901. Even if we assume the worst case, the artist,
Douglas Tilden, died in 1935, i.e. the copyright has certainly expired. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Stephan Schulz.
R. Baley (
talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Sculpture is public domain in the United States. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:39, 14 February 2008 (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.
This is a very nice picture, and I'd hate to lose it. Unfortunately, the user who uploaded the photo
retracted their initial GFDL release. Since this picture is replaceable, we should honor the uploader's change of license and delete the image from Wikipedia. —
Remember the dot(
talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Unused, don't accomplish anything that plain text would not do as well or better, and the text they do have is a mish-mash of French and English. --CaerwineCaer’s whines 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete – plain text would work better if we ever need something like this. —
Remember the dot(
talk) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Agree with above, plus, though trivial, it's actually a mix of English and
Catalan.
Deg2800 (
talk) 14:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - It was used
here Most of the language is
Catalan. It's an iso code, and a prosecuted cultural sign of Catalan culture. If there's no freedom here to show it, where? --
Paco✉ 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But why isn't it currently used in any Wikipedia pages?
Badagnani (
talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Not to mention that those two characters are considered today to be mistakes inherited by Unicode from a legacy encoding made without input from Catalans, so I hardly call "Ŀ" a sign of Catalan culture. "L·" perhaps, but it's use in Catalan is dealt with already in the article about "
·" CaerwineCaer’s whines 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)reply
uploader seems to have lots of copyright troubles and marked it his but gave a message board as the source
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Copyright violation - Scan of a school portrait
Nv8200ptalk 03:59, 8 February 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as one of many such images uploaded by Dark Horse King. I've nominated the rest of these
below. CaerwineCaer’s whines 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The picture is
Santana Moss, which doesn't currently have a photo. I don't know if this one is worth using, though. --
B (
talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
There is no source or author information. The uploader says it is in the public domain, however it looks like a recent, professionally shot image. Probably this is a case in which other sites are using the image, so it was assumed to be free.
Kla’quot (
talk |
contribs) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have been told by someone who used it that the photo is a still from a film of an orca bull charging up on the beach and grabbing and tossing around a seal lion pup (which escaped) and that the photo has been in the public domain for many years.
Bobisbob (
talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think think you could be right about it being from a film. It looks to me like an image from a BBC TV series narrated by David Attenborough. I am not sure which series but it could be the Living Planet. If so it will still be in copyright and not public domain.
Probably Heisenberg (
talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: The image is from the BBC´s living Planet series where Orca´s from four areas of the world are presented - Tysfjord Norway, Northern New zealand, Johnstone Straights and Punte Del Norte In Patagonia. As such, the image is copyrighted and not under public domain.
SammytheSeal (
talk) 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Further discussion : Unless the website Bobisbob quotes as having given permission to use the image via CC can show provenence to the copyright of the image, it should be removed. Copyright of imagery from the BBC Living planet series remains with the BBC NHU.
SammytheSeal (
talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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 uploader has apparently confused Wikipedia with an image hosting site. This is one of a large number of such images which are unused, except for one or two he is using on his user page. --CaerwineCaer’s whines 05:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Mike. Majorly (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete but let him keep one or two, as per usual practice.
Nick (
talk) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (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.
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned.
BJBot (
talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Commons showing through. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned.
BJBot (
talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I don't know what the problem is. I see no reason why the photo should be deleted. It was discussed about a year ago, and no one has challenged it since then.--
Gilabrand (
talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (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.
No article on the book, no discussion of the book in the
Zell Miller article in which it is used.
скоморохъ 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
a similar drawing could be produced by a wikipedian, using this as a source. it is not necessary to use a non-free image to show what waterboarding looks like.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a unique image and not easily replaceable. Lawrence §
t/
e 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It could be replaced if a Wikipedian drew a similar image. It is not being used to illustrate any specific waterboarding currently, it is being used to illustrate what waterboarding looks like generally in the upper right corner of
Waterboarding and
enhanced interrogation technique.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
And since the definition of waterboaring is contested, then that would open the door to an Original Research war. This image is uncontested as a depiction of waterboarding, and so it's irreplaceable at this time. Lawrence §
t/
e 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Can we not avoid original research by simply drawing a very similar image?
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
As the present photograph is acceptable under fair use, as it is a historic image and thus irreplaceable, what is the benefit to Wikipedia of replacing it? Lawrence §
t/
e 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The same benefit as the whole idea of having a free encyclopedia--that if we create a free image to replace it, that image can be reused and distributed by anyone without any copyright problems.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's clear that the primary reason
Vann Nath painted this was to ensure that the activities that transpired in the
Tuol Sleng Prison during the
Khmer Rouge regime would be known, both in Cambodia and in the world. As such, this photograph of his painting is absolutely valuable, necessary, and irreplaceable--and (though he is not in good health), I am sure Nath would agree.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't doubt that, but Wikipedia's mission is to make free information available to the world. Since we are using this image instead of creating our own, there are no free images of waterboarding anywhere. See my compromise proposal below.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Elian Gonzalez and the
Kent State shootings have similarly irreplaceable, historically important fair use images. Images of actual waterboarding are extremely rare, and the
Vann Nath image is similarly irreplaceable.
Badagnani (
talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But this article is not about one historical instance of waterboarding, it's about the practice as a whole. There's no dispute about what waterboarding looks like, which is what the top image is meant to show. We don't need to use a copyrighted image when we have multiple historical photos and paintings that can be used as sources for an accurate original image.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This article includes a section on the historical uses of waterboarding.
(Hypnosadist) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The painting is displayed in a torture museum in Cambodia and was likely painted by a Cambodian. These facts about the painting and the photograph convey extra information and provide context about the history and use of waterboarding beyond the mere depiction of waterboarding itself. While other depictions might augment the understanding of waterboarding, they could not substitute for the specific context that this particular image provides.
Turantual (
talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - The image is an irreplaceable depiction of waterboarding, as practiced by the Khmer Rouge, and no other similar depiction is available. An image drawn by a Wikipedian would not have the authenticity of this painting, actually painted by one of the half-dozen or so survivors of Cambodia's most notorious Khmer Rouge prison, where waterboarding was routinely practiced.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
But because we use this image instead of using free image (in addition or instead), there is no free image of waterboarding that can be reused elsewhere.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Deletion gone overboard. A drawing pales in comparison to an actual photo.
R. Baley (
talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Um, this is a painting, not a photo.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's a photograph of a painting. Lawrence §
t/
e 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. If anything, it needs a better fair use rationale. But as a unique piece of art it obviously is irreplaceable.--
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Compromise proposal? I nominated this image because I think it is currently being used improperly, not to show waterboarding in a certain time and place, but to show waterboarding generally. We also have a photo of waterboarding during the Vietnam War (
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg) that is linked in the article as another historical source about what this looks like. Could someone more artistically talented than me be recruited to draw a general picture for the top right of
Waterboarding and
Enhanced interrogation technique, using these two images as sources, and we could move this painting down to accompany the Tuol Sleng section? (Where I think it would be appropriate.)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Followup: I have asked User:Rama to do an illustration. (S/he has done great line drawings of people elsewhere in the encyclopedia.) I'm currently waiting for a response.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose compromise proposal. A Wikipedia-drawn facsimile of an irreplaceable, historically important image of actual waterboarding is most unsatisfactory at best.
Badagnani (
talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong keep This painting is an ACTUAL historical primary source, a line drawing is just not the same.
(Hypnosadist) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Everything
Badagnani has already said, more eloquently than I could. If
Calliopejen1 is so keen to have a completely PD drawing, then produce that as well. I see no conflict there.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 01:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is an image from a torture museum in Cambodia, giving unique historical insight and veracity not easily replicated with a drawing by a wikipedian. henrik•
talk 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
IDEA This painting was created by a survivor of Khmer Rouge so that their crimes would be recorded for ever. It hangs on public display in Cambodias Holocaust museum so the crimes of the Khmer Rouge could be recorded for ever. I think if we ask them nicely they will let us have use of this image so that the crimes of the khmer rouge can be recorded forever.
(Hypnosadist) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - The museum is likely not "wired" for email. I saw Nath interviewed briefly on an episode of Globe Trekker recently (which was probably filmed a couple of years ago). I assume he still lives near there. But even if we had someone go there to meet him and ask for the use of a photo of his painting, I'm sure he'd say, "Do whatever you want with it," then explain the reason why he painted it and placed it on display in the museum in the first place (so that the world would know what happened there). We have to be thoughtful and reasonable in everything we do.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
strong keep per Badagnani, and we need to find a way to curb this rampant, unwarranted image paranoia.
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (
talk) 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - We have such a way; it is called
WP:SNOW.
Badagnani (
talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Spot-on nomination. I could see this image being used if accompanied by sourced critical commentary of the specific event at the
Tuol Sleng article or as an example of the art style and human rights activism of
Vann Nath, but there is no question that its current usage at
waterboarding satisfies the
Wikipedia definition of replaceability. A free license sketch or diagram of the waterboarding apparatus would be far more informative, you could even go as far as to appropriate
this free photo to illustrate the basic concept. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
That picture is of a weights bench and cement mixer, any sources to say those are used to waterboard?
(Hypnosadist) 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Your insistence on using primary sources for procuring illustrations would eliminate nearly all user-generated media from Wikipedia. At some point you're just arguing that
ceci n'est pas une pipe. That said, the flickr link is indeed a horrible substitute (even though a weight bench and cement mixer could suffice for a waterboarding apparatus). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
When we have a high quality primary source it should be used in preference to user-generated media. One has genuine histroical notability the other is made up by some-one who has never been waterboarded, seen it happen and is not a notable person in thier own right.
(Hypnosadist) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
strong keep and opposition to compromise This is an image that holds authority, unlike a depiction by someone that's never seen it occur. It's valid under fair use and in my opinion removing it or replacing it with a non-authoritative drawing would damage the article.
82.27.27.18 (
talk) 11:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The image itself seems to adequately fulfill all the requirements of "fair use" and it not only has significance as an illustrative tool but it's artistic significance conveys a level of truth and meaning that would be missing in a graphic produced by an anonymous WP contributor.
Geeman (
talk) 01:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. No inherent
WP:NFCC problem as far as I can see, and is a virtually unmissable way to clarify the topic at hand. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 09:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep and Opposition to Compromise This is historically important, and contains vastly more communicative value than a novel drawing can ever contain. Moreover, it is free to use, according to the photographer, so the compromise is pointless.
Aminorex (
talk) 15:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but suggest perhaps tweaking the brightness and contrast for visibility. ~
UBeR (
talk) 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete absolutely. This is not a historical photo, it's a non-free photo of a generic artwork. It is completely replacable, and there is no possible fair use rationale. ➪
HiDrNick! 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
"This is not a historical photo" No what is in the photo (the painting) is of historical importance. "generic artwork" No this is a piece of art by someone who was waterboarded on that very piece of equipment depicted. Read
Vann Nath.
(Hypnosadist) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
No,
Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg is a historical photo that qualifies for fair use under the policies of Wikipedia. It is irreplacable. That fact that the artist was himself tortured in this manner doesn't deminish his copyright under the law. We can find a free substitute. ➪
HiDrNick! 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
And if an admin would contact him you could get his permision, he gave the picture to the Cambodian holocaust museum to promote the knowledge of these events. Its freely displayed there by the now owners.
(Hypnosadist) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
As for the historical nature of this event, in Vann Naths prison camp S-21 14,000 people entered, 7 Left! That makes Tianamen square look like the small meaningless political demo. This was part of the mass-murder of over two million people. Thats historical notability.
(Hypnosadist) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. At this point in time, I believe this image is not replaceable with a free image. Any drawing would either be a derivative or original research. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:06, 17 February 2008 (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.
given san francisco's age (not a particularly old city), this statue is probably copyrighted
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google quickly yields
this page, according to which the statue has been erected in 1901. Even if we assume the worst case, the artist,
Douglas Tilden, died in 1935, i.e. the copyright has certainly expired. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Stephan Schulz.
R. Baley (
talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Sculpture is public domain in the United States. -
Nv8200ptalk 03:39, 14 February 2008 (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.
This is a very nice picture, and I'd hate to lose it. Unfortunately, the user who uploaded the photo
retracted their initial GFDL release. Since this picture is replaceable, we should honor the uploader's change of license and delete the image from Wikipedia. —
Remember the dot(
talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply