Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 April 1

April 1

File:Pinkheadshot.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio on commons, linking to http://witconference.org/speakers/ --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riaz M T pic in movie Onnum Onnum Moonu.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riaz M T location still Dustbin movie.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riaz M T Adoor Bhasi Best Actor Award.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riaz M T receiving special honor from Chief Minister of Kerala V S Achuthanandan.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uploads, including one on commons, varying sizes and quality, only one file with metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shaktisinh.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 remaining uploads, low-res, no metadata. See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_February_22#File:Shaktisinh_addressing_public_gathering_in_his_constituency.jpg. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shaktisinh Gohil at satyagrah program.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 remaining uploads, low-res, no metadata. See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_February_22#File:Shaktisinh_addressing_public_gathering_in_his_constituency.jpg. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus is image fails to meet

WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Appears to be used in a decorative manner, as the cover itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary in the article nor can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article only by this image. As such, this violates

contextual significance in the sole place where this non-free image is used. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Disappointing. Please see the article talk page close by @Callanecc: and discussion about inclusion. At most, thearticle text might need a tweak to clarify significance. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS relate the controversy to its origin in the Post cover story, see .e.g. here in the first paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also, here discussion of how many post cover pages could result from the revelation. It may take a few days for editors to parse what's in the article text, but the significance of the Post cover is well documented in the cited sources and was agreed by active and uninvolved editors in the cited RfC. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk and Callanecc: I have added a couple of words to the lead to indicate the specific relevance of the cover image here. Hawk, please let me know if there is further information or article clarification required. The significance is widely noted in the sources currently cited for the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Post published a front-page story. My understanding is that the particular image of that story is decorative in the context of the article; nothing about the cover is the subject of commentary, even though the story is discussed.

WP:NFCC is not something that talk page consensus can get around; it's an exemption doctrine in line with the WMF Licensing Policy

, which notes that [a]s of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted. There needs to be something about the cover itself that gets sourced commentary, not merely text existence of the cover story.

I'm also not seeing something akin to the non-free justification for something a-la-A Rape on Campus where the image is used as a means of primary visual identification of a particular story. If the article were solely about the NY Post story, it could make sense to have the cover image as being the primary visual identification, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that the article is solely about that single story. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, the article is overwhelmingly about that single story and the fact that it was a tabloid Fox headline days before the election. It may take a few days to get more information organized to support this, but if I understand you correctly, I believe the declaration via the cover is essential and so described by the weight of RS. The reason I mentioned the RfC was not to suggest that local consensus trumps policy, but rather that editors were aware of the test of significance and fair use when they commented, and did not think this would be mere decoration. Actually we removed a prior image that was too close to decoration or referential. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already had an RFC on whether or not to include said-image & the result was - include. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: - can you link to this RFC? starship .paint (exalt) 02:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay — you are misrepresenting that RfC. It was about the masthead image, and the result was OMIT. There was also a discussion about the cover image and the result was not include. It was "rough include" with many stated concerns, including Wikipedia policy and copyright issues: "I've assessed this as rough consensus because a specific image of the article may or may not have consensus ..." RoyLeban (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to re-start a discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of the image-in-question, at HBLC's talkpage? That's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting restarting the discussion. I am merely calling you out for falsely stating there was consensus to include the cover image, when that was not the result. Lying about the result of an RfC is not a good look. RoyLeban (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The end result, the image is being used. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another lie. The image is currently on the page. This discussion right here, that you are trying to subvert by lying about the result of an RfC, is about whether it should be allowed at all. RoyLeban (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still being used on the page-in-question. You go right ahead & do whatever you can, to have it deleted. I'm not losing any sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And how about you stop lying and stop trying to subvert a discussion like this? RoyLeban (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to bore me. Continue your debate with somebody else. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary uses of this cover include the following RS, here and here. it was also used by US Rep. Jim Jordan in the House committee hearing he chaired on the story and widely reproduced in reporting on that hearing, e.g. here and here - associating the laptop issues with the Post cover story. Further background, see Twitter_Files#No._1:_Content_moderation_of_New_York_Post_story SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there have been several sources that have talked about that story. What I am asking, and what I have not seen an answer on, are these:

Have sources talked about that cover (i.e. the literal front page)? There are plenty of sources that are talking about the story (this isn't contested), but there's a difference between saying "X was a Cover Story in publication P" and actually providing commentary on the cover itself. (see
WP:NFCC
#8]])
To what extent does the inclusion of that cover provide information to the reader that is not and cannot be described in the text? (see:
WP:NFCC
#1)

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the editors who have commented here and elsewhere are aware of the criteria for WP use of this image, including the issues you've articulated, and have determined that the use is appropriate. To some extent your concern seems to have crossed from a policy issue to a question of content and NPOV weight. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the editors who have commented here and elsewhere are aware of the criteria for WP use of this image, including the issues you've articulated, and have determined that the use is appropriate. No, copyright was specifically carved out of previous discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what VQuakr said. Copyright was explicitly excluded from the discussion, and the result was not that the use was appropriate, but that there was a "rough consensus" to include with significant concerns. RoyLeban (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it would only be considered "decorative" and nothing else. In considering the etymology or provenance, this issue by the NYP is arguably the catalyst for mainstream attention by RS, all based on the claim by JP Mac Isaac. DN (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not well versed in these image policies, but the editors at the article page have clearly found this particular image is relevant to the article and should be present if possible. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the NPR story cited above,

From pillar to post, the tabloid asserted as fact things presumed to be true. While the headline links the former vice president to his son's business dealings, the story serves up no proof.

SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:NFCCP #8; the Post isn't the subject of the article and no encyclopedic understanding of the subject is uniquely obtained by adding the image. Copyright concerns were specifically noted in the RFC closure so it's unsurprising this was raised here. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The well-informed editors at the article talk page affirmed that those two assertions are false. To wit, the Post cover story is the subject of the WP page, and the immediate explosive impact of the Post story is coveyed by and was caused by its sensational headline treatment and the visability of that cover page on newsstands and the web. And if you care to review the matter, you will see that the agreement on use of the image includes editors who have agreed on little else over the past 6 months. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the cover and its headline are not discussed even once in the article. As I wrote below, if the cover itself is important, it needs to be discussed and explained in the article, with appropriate sourcing. Lacking that, I don't see how it can be included.

There was not an agreement to use the image, only a "rough consensus" to include per the RfC that originally started with a discussion of the Post masthead, which was excluded. RoyLeban (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The well-informed editors at the article talk page affirmed that those two assertions are false. This is untrue AFAICT. As I noted above, the NFCC assessment was left unsettled. Certainly this well-informed editor expressed skepticism that NFCC could be applied to this image for that article. Regardless, the better-informed experts on NFCC here are best suited to assess the NFCC application to this file. As such, the argument that this is so settled on the article talk page that it shouldn't have been brought here is a dead end; I suggest dropping it as it will convince no one. the Post cover story is the subject of the WP page err, no. Not at all. VQuakr (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've thought about this for a while before I decided to add my opinion, and my conclusion is that, like any opinion or editorial work, it does not belong. The NY Post cover, like most of their covers, is intended to be incendiary, and is a short opinion piece, not a news article or news headline. The Post is considered an unreliable source ("There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics") and has a very strong bias in their coverage. If the cover and its headline were a quote, it would be given context like any other opinion. Presenting the cover without context makes it appear to be news, which it is not. The argument for inclusion is that the cover was a key part of starting the controversy. To the extent that that is true, it demands that a full context be provided — that the cover was opinion or wishful thinking on the part of those with a right-wing agenda, that it was intentionally incendiary, that it sparked controversy, and that it was misleading and at least partially false. RoyLeban (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2023 (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.