Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10

[edit]

SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mamalujo (notify | contribs).
  • Take a look at the file's history and User talk:Mamalujo#File:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg for some background on this. I came across this whole thing while doing my copyvio deletion rounds, and it really seems to complicated for a speedy deletion. Bringing here for discussion; I haven't read everything and am kind of neutral on the topic. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant but firm Delete - This image is very striking, and it does seem to have historical value, however the problem with it is that there is little or no evidence that it is what it purports to be, a photo of Republican militiamen (i.e. "leftists") during the Spanish Civil War desecrating a statue dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus by shooting at it. I've found one reference that says the image was given wide distribution during the war by the Nationalists (i.e. the Republicans' opposition) as an example of the atrocities of the other side. That fact opens up the strong possibility that the image is a piece of propaganda, created by the Nationalists (or perhaps discovered by the Nationalists, although that seems less likely) to influence public opinion against their enemies. Unfortunately, the only online sources for the image give absolutely no information on its authorship or provenance, and all take the image strictly at face value.

    All things being equal, I'd love to keep the image, since it is visually strong and appears to be of historic values (even if why it's of historic value is uncertain), making sure that any time it is used in an article the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the image is clearly indicated in its caption – but there's really no way to guarantee that, and the potential for the image to be misused is quite high. Therefore, I think the best thing to do is to delete it now, and at some future time if someone comes up with definite information about its history, it can be re-uploaded then. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - for the reasons that Ed summarizes above. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention it's a non-free image without any reliable source info. – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fair use rationales are more than adequate. Now I understand that this may be a non-free image - in which case, the copyright and source information is required when it is utilized under claims of fair use. I have seen it in a volume on the Spanish Civil War which I do not own. I will locate the volume and provide that info and that should resolve the issue. As to the claim that it is not what it purports to be, there is no reason to give credence to that claim. Not only was this monument at Cerro de los Ángeles shot at but it was eventually destroyed with the statue dragged through the streets, the monument after the war being replaced by a larger one. Desecration of this type was common at the outset of the war - there was no need to stage it and there is no source saying it was (or even may be) fraudulent. The fact that such an image was widely circulated by Nationalists is understandable. It was no more staged than was the bombing, and images of the bombing, of Guernica, which was also used as propaganda. Mamalujo (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got citations for any of that (from reliable sources, I mean, not Falangist publications)? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry Orangemike, I use exclusively "Falangist" publications as my sources. Mamalujo (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mamalujo: There's no doubt that the monument was destroyed during the war, but there's no evidence that I've been able to find that it was deliberately dynamited by the Republicans. In fact, at least one battle took place in the area, with the use of tank and artillery, so it's more than probable that it was destroyed as collateral damage of the fighting. As I pointed out on you talk page, the official website for the monument makes no claims for how the original was destroyed, so, unless you or someone can provide an unbiased reliable source that says otherwise, I think it's still quite possible that the "destroyed by Republicans" story is also propaganda.

In any case, deleting the image now doesn't prejudice your ability to re-upload it if you find the evidence needed to establish what its contents and provenance is. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've located the image in Anthony Beevor's The Spanish Civil War. It is a reliable source, and, if Beevor has a bias, it is somewhat in favor of the Republicans. The image appears as illustration #23 in the book and the caption identifies "Republican militia" as shooting at the statue of Christ. So I think the authenticity is clearly established. As to the copyright, unfortunately the illustration credits are only general as to all the images, list one main source, and a number of other sources, and are found at the beginning of the book. This is not the volume I was referencing above. I will keep looking for that book, as it may have more specific individual image credits. Mamalujo (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Beevor's The Spanish Civil War his The Battle for Spain retitled, or is it a wholly separate book? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish Civil War is 1982. The Battle for Spain is 2006. I haven't read the latter (although I did read a review years ago), but I'm pretty sure it's a new book, not just a rehash or retitling of the earlier work. The image might also be in the latter book, though. Mamalujo (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have access to the newer book, and will try to take a look at it tommorrow. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On his official website, Beevor writes about the newer book:

A prototype version of this book was researched in the late 1970s soon after the death of General Franco and was published in 1982. So much new material has emerged in the intervening 23 years and so many new archive documents have become available, that a new attempt became necessary.

Given this, it'll be interesting to me to see if Beevor does not include the image in the new book. I do know that when I looked through it a couple of weeks ago, I found no reference in the index to the Republican-shooting-the-statue incident, and it was from Beevor that I derived the information about the battle that took place nearby. That could mean that in the intervening 23 years, the authethicity or provenance of the image has been thrown into doubt.

As I said, I'll look at it tomorrow and see what I find. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Beevor's website has a slide show of 12 images, and the image in question isn't included. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've sent an inquiry to Beevor via his agency in London, asking him his opinion concerning the authenticity and provenance of the photograph, and for his thoughts on the destruction of the statue. I don't really expect an answer, but felt there was no harm in asking. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a response from him helps us find the copyright and source info that's fine, but any response from him regarding the authenticity of the photo would be OR and should play no part. Mamalujo (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The response from him could be considered OR and therefore should not be included in the article, but we can use a wide variety of types of information in determining whether a file or article should be retained or deleted. Think of it in terms of a police investigation of a crime. In their work, they can make use of many sources of information to help guide their investigation to the right conclusions but which cannot, for various reasons, be used at trial; here we can use stuff like Google hits, which would never be included in an article, to help determine notability. This is, after all, a meta-discussion. Beevor's opinions about the image can certainly be used to help guide us to a proper conclusion about the image. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
convenience break 1
[edit]
  • (outdent for convenience) Alright, I've had another look at The Battle for Spain, and the image in question is not included in the 51 photographs in the book. I've also confirmed what I reported before, that the only mention of El Cerro de los Ángeles (the site where the statue in question is located) in the book is to give some details of a battle that took place there. Specifically, 5 Republican brigades (1 Spanish and 4 International) were sent to capture the hill as a diversionary tactic. In the absence of any evidence otherwise, as opposed to propaganda, it is more than conceivable that the statue on top of the hill was destroyed in the fighting.

    In addition, to my surprise I did receive an answer to my inquiry from Anthony Beevor. In his response, he says that the photograph in question "cretainly [sic] looks posed" and that it is open to doubt whether they fired on the statue or not. So, let me summarize this aspect of this discussion:

    (1) In the 1970s, historical writer Anthony Beevor researched the Spanish Civil War and wrote a book about it, The Spanish Civil War, which was published in 1982.

    (2) This book was comprehensive according to the available information, and should be considered a reliable source.

    (3) Included in this book was the image in question, which purports to show Republican miltiamen lined up to shoot at the statue dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on El Cerro de los Ángeles, a hill south of Madrid where is near the geographic center of Spain.

    (4) In the intervening 23 years since the book was published, much more information has come to light, so much so that Beevor felt a complete re-write was called for. He therefore wrote The Battle for Spain which was published in 2006.

    (4) Beevor refers to the earlier book as a "prototype" for the current book.

    (5) The Battle for Spain does not include the image in question among its 51 photographs.

    (6) Beevor, in personal correspondance to me, says that the image "certainly" looks as if it was posed, and that there is reason to doubt whether any shooting actually took place.

    There might be, of course, any number of reasons why the image was not included in the new book, but the fact that the new book is essentially an overall updating of the previous book, combined with Beevor's comments about the image, means that citing the older book as a reliable source to justify the inclusion of the image on Wikipedia is obviated. In particular, Beevor's comments, which parallel my own concerns about the authenticity and provenance of the image, should be taken to mean that the image may not be what it purports to be. A picture of such dubious quality should not be included in Wikipedia's archives. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR and the above speculation, conclusions and synthesis notwithstanding, there is no reliable source which casts doubt on the photograph. Beevor's earlier book remains a reliable source and all speculation and conjecture by editors is beside the point. Barring a reliable source, we can't speculate as to why the photo does not appear in the later book. There are no doubt all kinds of info and images which are not found in the later book for authorial, editorial and other reasons which we do not know. If the photo was posed (speculative info which comes from OR), it was as likely posed by Republicans and there is no reason to think, in light of the widespread desecration of sacred objects, that they would have refrained from shooting. I don't think anything in the above post changes the current status with regard to this image. Mamalujo (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at this point, there is no reliable source for the image, since Beevor essentially withdrew it from his updated work. I suggest you might want to find one, as I suggested to you several weeks ago, since at this point four people have participated in this FfD discussion, and 3 are firmly for deletion.

The very fact that you can say that "this option is just as likely as that option" means that we do not know enough about this photo to justify its inclusion here. Such uncertainty cannot be harmonized with the claim that the image is of historical importance. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I was just countering your speculation with my speculation, both of which are beside the point. We have a reliable source which says the photo is of Republican militia. Instead of digging your heals into your position, as long as you're corresponding with Beevor, why don't you ask what is and where we can find the copyright info for the image. Mamalujo (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, since we're here discussing whether the image is what it purports to be, in order to determine whether it should be kept on Wikipedia, the only legitimate response to the concerns I've raised would be for you to present evidence that the photograph definitely is what it is said to be. For me to say "It could be X" and for you to say "Well, it could be Y instead" doesn't help your case, it merely confirms that we don't have sufficient information from reliable sources to know the facts about the photo. If you have that evidence, please provide it now, because there's been nothing presented here to support the nature, authethicity or provenance of the image - Beevor's use of it in his earlier book is obviated by his exclusion of it in his later re-write and expansion of that book, as well as his comments about it to me. There is, at this point, no reliable source for what the image is, simply bald statements that it shows something specific, without any evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Absent this information, it's clear that the photo should be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where the incident (the "execution") is mentioned, but I'm not seeing the quote about the most famous ritual destruction, nor am I seeing the image. I'm probably just missing something, can you be specific about where it is on the page? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it now -- you've fallen victim to the fact that the URL displayed on Google Books doesn't change when you change pages in the frame below. The image is on page 168, and there's additional material on page x (image info), page xx (chronology) and page 80. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that now. I've also found additional sources that indicate it was an act of desecration by Republican forces. Also, since this work is from 1936 and was ciruclated, as you note, at that time, the work is almost certainly now in the public domain under Spanish copyright law (being more than 70 years since publication). It appears it is also an anonymous work (probably snapped by a compatriot of the firing squad), since the Cambridge U. Press book, and the Spanish Encyclopedia from which it comes, do not attribute the creator, as is required by Spanish copyright law. Mamalujo (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I note that the source for the photo was published in 1967, which is about the same time as when Beevor was researching his first book on the Spanish Civil War. I can't comment on Spanish copyright law, as I know nothing about it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
convenience break 2
[edit]
  • In light of my last few posts, I think the closing admin should keep the image and the image info either be changed to public domain or the source info be changed and the image be kept as fair use. Mamalujo (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the PDness of it: does the inclusion of the image in a book published in 1982 (Beevor's) start the clock on it again? I'm a bit vague on this aspect of American and British copyright law. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to Images of the Spanish Civil War {London, 1986) by R. Carr? It's cited in another book, and seems like it would be the perfect source for information on the photograph. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why all this stuff didn't come up before when I was originally researching the photo, but take a look at this, from "Shots of War" an exhibit of photojournalism from the SCW, which says about this image

"This picture, taken by a Paramount News-reel representative and received by air from Madrid yesterday, illustrates an outrage which has no parallel in the photographs published by "The Daily Mail" of the Spanish Reds' war on religion. It shows a Communist firing squad aiming at the colossal Monument of the Sacred Heart on the Cerro de los Angeles, a hill a few miles south of Madrid which is regarded as the exact centre of Spain."

The image is credited to the Associated Press of Great Britain Ltd.

I've added this URL to the "source" on the FURs on the image's page, and removed the phrasing about its provenance not being established, but it's clearly not PD.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new version of the image, the "cleaned" version from the exhibition, which is one generation away from the original, and has been cleaned professionally. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appropriate use of WP:NFCC
    Ok, let's look at the basic facts of this image. The image was taken during the Spanish Civil War from 1936-1939 and was copyrighted at the time by Associated Press of Great Britain Ltd. Given the caption above (noted in Ed Fitzgerald's post) it apparently was published the day after being taken. Most copyrights are determined from the date of being first published, the death of the author, or a few other squirrely technicalities (I've personally found this source to be the easiest to understand). In the case of this image, I've found nothing in the evidence presented that states this was published in the U.S. around the timeframe of the Spanish Civil War. Accordingly, I'm forced to accept that it was published in the first book mentioned here first in the U.S. Because of that, it appears to be a copyrighted work with full copyright protections, ergo, a fair use rationale must be applied to this copyrighted image (and has). Therefore, all that is left is to determine if this image meets our non-free content criteria for inclusion for even a single article on Wikipedia (this is a minimum requirement for non free images); use in other articles is another debate altogether as this is about whether to keep or delete this image). I believe this image is appropriately used in Red Terror (Spain) and Spanish Civil War, but not in Desecration. The first two use it as illustration of an iconic image representative of at least one side of the civil war; in these instances, they are poignant and meet our criteria. The last one should go as desecration of this manner (destruction of religious symbols) can be performed on a daily basis in the U.S., ergo, the image can be replaced. — BQZip01 — talk 05:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cusacks Cross.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cusacks Cross.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robinbaxterhunt (notify | contribs).
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.

P000420.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:P000420.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by John English 9999 (notify | contribs).
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.

Sweetabs sweetabs.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweetabs sweetabs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Junkhetrick (notify | contribs).
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.

George Furness Correct Grave Words.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Furness Correct Grave Words.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ursulanium (notify | contribs).
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.

Prselfportrait.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prselfportrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamspeak (notify | contribs).
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.

Petra_197x-c.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petra_197x-c.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thief12 (notify | contribs).
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.

Sad kermit.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sad kermit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Exxolon (notify | contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_10&oldid=1142599617"