Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grovel (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 4 April 2005 (→March 30). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For licensing issues that are not copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such images should be dealt with as soon as possible.

As per the speedy deletion policy, administrators can delete on sight "[a]n image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Wikipedia and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained." This does not include visually similar pictures, such as PNG versions of JPEG images. Such images should be listed here instead. For the time being, this also does not include photos copied to Wikimedia Commons.

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- List of empty images

Listing instructions

To list an image on this page, simply add it to the bottom. If it is an obsoleted image, please also list the image that it is obsoleted by, in the format "[[:Image:Foo.jpg]] - obsoleted by [[:Image:Bar.jpg]]".

Please always inform the uploader of the image that their image is at imminent risk of deletion by adding a message to their talk page.

If you remove an image from an article, you should list the article from which you removed it, so there can be effective community review of whether or not the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.

Add the following message to the top of any image page listed on this page: {{ifd}}, which shows up as:

This template should only be used on file pages.

On this page, state the reasons that the image should be deleted. Some people like to use the following abbreviations:

  • AB (absentee uploader} - the uploader has not contributed to Wikipedia in a long time, and is probably unavailable to answer questions.
  • CV (copyright violation) - the image might be used in violation of copyright, or else there is no copyright info provided
  • NE (not English) - the image contains text that is not English.
  • NS (no source) - image does not contain source and copyright info; tagged with {{No source}}. Replaces UV below.
  • OB (obsolete) - the image has been replaced by a better version.
  • OF (out-of-focus) - the image is blurry.
  • OR (orphan) - the image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia
  • UV (unverified) - image does not contain source and copyright info; tagged with {{unverified}}

Please sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~

Instructions for administrators

Before deleting an image, please make sure of the following:

  • That the image has been listed on this page for one week or longer
  • That the uploader has been alerted on their talk page to the imminent deletion of their image
  • That no objections to its deletion have been raised, or that a consensus to delete has been reached
  • That the image is not used in any articles (note that "What links here" is not currently reliable)
  • That the image is not currently being processed as a copyright violation

To delete an image, open the image page and click either the link, "Delete all revisions of this image" or the usual "delete" tab at the top of the page. Either will work. (This was not the case in previous versions of the software.)

Also, please specify the reason for deletion in your deletion summary. Examples:

Orphaned and obsoleted, listed on IfD since (date)
Orphaned copyright violation, listed on IfD since (date)

If you delete an image listed on this page, please remove the listing and note your removal in your edit summary.

When deleting an image because an identically named image exists in the Wikimedia Commons, make sure to preserve the image description. Otherwise the image will still be shown but the page will also say "This page does not exist".

The "What links here" tool is broken for images. Do not rely on what links here to determine whether an image is unused! You must use the Wikipedia internal search engine, with all namespaces selected, to confirm that an image is unused in the English-language Wikipedia. You should also be alert for signs that the image is used in other languages, some of which use external links to include images from en. See BUG 85 for the current status of this issue.

Listings older than one week

These need additional information or more opinions before consensus can be determined.

  • Unverified Orphans have been moved to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Unverified orphans. See the discussion on the talk page there for details on what is to be done with them. Please list unverified orphans on that page. If unverified orphans are listed on this page (WP:IFD), then instead of deleting unverified orphans from here at the end of the 7-day period, they should be moved to the unverified orphans page instead. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Listings less than one week old

March 28

You may have a problem with your browser. My browser (Firefox 1.0.2) shows it correctly. Keep, if the problem is not common, otherwise convert to gif or jpg. It should be linked to Haughton impact crater article. Delete. Seems to be a duplicate of Image:DevonIsl.png. --Jyril 19:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, Firefox displays it, while Internet Explorer doesn't. But it isn't totally IE's fault: the image encoding had errors. I've uploaded a fixed version at Image:DevonIsl.png. dbenbenn | talk 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 29

Delete. I uploaded the original and agree that the new copy is better. Sayeth 16:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

March 30

  • Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg. Essentially indistinguishable from the previously voted on autofellatio image. The autofellatio page already contains a drawn image which should satisfy any percieved need for visual depiction; this picture is just being used for vandalism. --MC MasterChef 01:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The previous image Autofellatio.jpg had copyvio issues. This has none. The previous image was also being used by the autofellatio vandal nonstop, which spawned a raving lynchmob of victims. This picture is not being used in vandalism, and hopefully it won't now that the linking compromise (linking to the image from autofellatio rather than displaying it inline) has been more or less settled. In any case, vandalism is not a valid reason to start deleting material.
    This picture is also of better quality and illustrates the subject perfectly. The only reason (that I can see) that people can argue to delete this is personal distaste. Well, Wikipedia is not censored for minors and it may contain material that, while objectionable to some, nonetheless serves a purpose in the appropriate article. And for goodness sakes, it's even linked from the article. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Well, the picture was used in vandalism this evening (EST) (you can see my talk page history, for one), and I guess I fail to understand the compelling need for a high-resolution, close-up photo shot of what is already perfectly well illustrated, in a less inflammatory manner, there on the existing article page. --MC MasterChef 01:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. In any case, that's bogus to say that it should be deleted because of vandalism. I assume it was using the double-redirect trick – that's a problem with the wiki, and one that I think has been brought up with the appropriate people and will hopefully be fixed soon(ish). We can't just start deleting material that vandals use. Out of context (especially bombing a user talk page), many pictures may well prove to be offensive to the average user. The question really comes down to merits of the photograph. It is a clear, accurate depiction of the subject. I don't think it's any more graphic than the subject necessitates. Should there be no image at all, then? I tend to disagree very strongly with that kind of censorship. The photo is much more informative than the illustration (although I suppose that's the point some are making – that it's too informative).
    I think a better solution might be to look into suppressing the image when it's linked to that way the vandal does it, if that's possible. (I believe some people brought it up at the last IfD but never followed it up). If it's possible to shrink the image here but not alter the file (which one can view directly here), I think that would be a good idea. If all else fails, maybe shrinking the image would be an apt compromise.
    I'm just saying, though, that many people voted to delete autofellatio.jpg from a sort of cost-benefit analysis pov, which I think can be solved creatively instead of deleting the image outright. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Uploaded only to prove a point. There is already a PD image of the subject. Thuresson 01:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that's patently false. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Assuming that there are no copyright problems, this image is fine. Rhobite 02:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. A copyright-problem-free photograph displaying autofellatio is encyclopedic. It's better than the copyrighted image that was just deleted, and more vivid than the line drawing currently displayed inline. It is {{linkimage}}-ed too. Image:Adolf.Hitler.jpg has been recently used to vandalize user pages—should we move to delete that too? —Markaci 2005-03-30 T 02:28 Z
    • Keep. The image is free of copyright problems, and illustrates the subject matter quite well. --Carnildo 02:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete as much as I dislike censorship, this is bound to be long term unusable by its copyright. Find me a legitimate GFDL or CC-by-SA or PD photo and I'll vote keep on it.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Can you surmise for us how you think this image might become unusable when "anyone can use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder and image provider are credited"? This is actually less restrictive than a GFDL and CC-by-SA licence as far as I can tell. —Christiaan 08:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. This time I gotta disagree with you, Alkivar my dearest. —RaD Man (talk) 07:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Isn't really needed. Will harm Wikipedia more than it helps. The image has no place in an encyclopedia. Still, I appreciate Christiaan's efforts to get permission for this image. --Duk 02:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      No image is really needed Duk, and it's not a question of need, its a question of encyclopedic value, which it clearly is. I think the opposite will be the case in terms of harm done if this image is deleted on grounds of self-censorship to appease a few people who are offended by bodily function. —Christiaan 09:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I'm not offended by bodily function, and don't have a problem with this image personally. My vote is based on what I think is best for Wikipedia, for a bunch of different reasons. Please don't ascribe incorrect motivations to my vote that belittle it. Doing so betrays an intolerance for other people's views. --Duk 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I didn't say you were offended and I didn't ascribe any motive on your part. I believe the harm will be done if the image is deleted and I believe your argument that it will harm Wikipedia if it stays is appeasing a few people who are offended by bodily function, thus participating in self-censorship and diluting Wikipedia, of which the ultimate goal is to spread all human knowledge. —Christiaan 21:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      OK, you weren't ascribing the comments to my vote, even though they were posted as a response to it.
      As far as self-censorship and diluting Wikipedia and the harm you speak of, this is nothing new; we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time, yet objectionable images seem to get a defacto protection under the banner of anti-censorship. It erodes the community's right to decide what we may or may not include in Wikipedia. The image isn't needed, there are plenty of external links. The value it adds to the page is minuscule compared to the damage images like this will cause the project. This is a judgment based on several different arguments. Duk 23:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Who says it's objectionable? This is a subjective matter. And I'd ask that you do not attack those of us who are arguing on grounds of censorship, implying that we don't have the interests of WIkipedia in mind and stating that we are eroding the community's right to decide. We are clearly doing nothing of the such and I think it's pretty obvious in this argument who is not being up front with their reasoning.
      This is a issue of great importance. This debate is less about an image and more about which cultural point of view will prevail on the English Wikipedia. We are setting precedents and it's my wish that Wikipedia does not go down the path of self-censorship. It may seem to you that such images get a "defacto protection under the banner of anti-censorship", but has it occurred to you what kind of treatment triggers this reaction in the first place? And please don't give me the "we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time" argument. Following this logic nothing could ever be considered self-censorship. It is not your place to tell me what I shouldn't be able to view on grounds of objectionability; this is my judgment to make as a reader. For me this image is of great encyclopedic value as it demonstrates clearly an act that some people think is not possible, and it does so in an encyclopedic article about that very act. —Christiaan 12:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      ...This debate is less about an image and more about which cultural point of view will prevail on the English Wikipedia... I'm not worried about which point of veiw will prevail, rather I'm interested in striving for a netural point of view. That means putting aside my own politics and preconceived ideas. When passing editorial judgment on an image like this I think about our audience, our customers, the consequences of our actions, how best to achieve our goals. My personal politics and cultural point of view aren't important.
      I'm sensitive to the concerns of people regarding censorship, but when I see a person trying to legitimize porn under the banner of anti-censorship, while at the same time getting in constant revert wars and censoring the contributions of others who's politics he doesn't agree with, then I have to question whether that person is interested in a neutral point of view, or his own point of view. --Duk 16:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      cough*cough* ...oh excuse me, I think I just vomited all over myself. How can you say all that in all seriousness? I know what your politics are in this regard and it's laughable to suggest you have put them aside considering some of the comments you have made on email lists. Hehe, give me break. Yours truly, the porn legitimiser, Christiaan 19:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      In all seriousness, politics don't interest me, I have never belonged to a political party, and I have never been a religious person. But I respect the views of people who are, and I respect your convictions too, although in this case disagree that anti-censorship is the dominant argument. You might be surprised how many of your views I share.
      Also, seriously; ...please don't give me the "we make judgments about what to keep and what to delete all the time" argument.. How can you reject an editorial judgment argument, in favor of censorship-like label, yet not apply it to your own reverts on politically charged pages and admit substantial censorship?--Duk 19:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Because it's not an editorial decision, you've clearly argued for reasons other than editorial, and so have I. You've said it will do damage if it stays and I said it will do damage it is removed. These are not editorial arguments. —Christiaan 20:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I don't understand your response; did you answer my question and agree that your frequent reverts of other editor's contributions is censorship (since you're not too fond of editorial judgment)?--Duk 20:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I'll repeat: most day-to-day activity of editing and reverting on Wikipedia, including mine, is based on editorial arguments ("this will make the article better", "this won't" etc. etc.). The argument we are having however is based on this image "Will harm Wikipedia more than it helps" and 'deleting this image will harm Wikipedia more than it helps'. These are not editorial arguments, do you see? Uh, and for the record, I am fond of editorial judgment, and you can quote me on that, thanks. —Christiaan 21:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I don't believe that pornographic images will improve our articles, I think that they will harm the articles, and the project in general (this is an editorial judgment). For example, if we add enough porn to the project it will get us banned in places it currently isn't (like work places), this will lower the value of the article and the project in general. Also, the image isn't necessary, there are lots of external links (this is an editorial judgment). The entire subject isn't encyclopedic (this is an editorial judgment). And now, for the first time, the least important of my arguments; we should weigh the value (insignificant in this case) of some materials, with the sensitivity of a very large number of our readers who are disturbed by images like this (this might be self-censorship, but I think of it as a value judgment).
      Again, I'm disturbed that a wide spectrum of valid arguments are ignored in favor of a black and white, overly simplified and incorrect anti-censorship label.--Duk 21:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      The intention of pornography is to cause sexual arousal, therefore it's a matter of context, and this image of a man sucking his penis in an encyclopedic article about a man sucking his penis is not intended to cause sexual arousal but to inform of the act of Autofellatio. So your statement that it is pornography is your opinion but that's all, and it certainly makes for interesting reading for you to then go on and call your opponents arguments over simplified. Clearly an image of a man sucking his penis in an article about a man sucking his penis improves that article. How you can state otherwise is beyond me. I think your argument that "the entire subject isn't encyclopedic" just goes to show that you're not putting your politics aside at all. To then go on and argue that the image will harm the project in general because some people find it offensive is to argue for self-censorship. Now if you want conflate self-censorship with normal editing then fine, let's debate on that basis: The reason most day-to-day edits, including my own, are not self-censorship is because they are not made on the basis that if they weren't made then someone might get offended; they're made on the basis of making the article more informative. You have clearly stated that one of your reasons is that some readers may be "disturbed" by the image. As much as you'd like to call this a "value judgment" it is actually the very definition of self-censorship. Now, do you think we should remove everything that the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea find disturbing so as to ensure no harm is done in the way of their citizens being blocked from viewing Wikipedia content? If not, why not? —Christiaan 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      I clarified my comment above. Adding porn to articles harms them and the project in general by getting us banned in various places (this is an editorial jugement).--Duk 22:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Sure, pornography's intension is to arouse, although this image doesn't do much for me. But that isn't the only thing that pornography does. It also offends people, and gets people in trouble at work, and reduces the value of our project by limiting access. What good is adding information to articles when it also reduces the number of people that can take advantage of our project? But this is only part of my argument, and I'm not conflate self-censorship with normal editing. To view it that way is to ignore a large part of the argument in favor of a simple, black and white self-censorship argument.--Duk 22:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      As far as censoring for the various governments that you mention (and censorship in general), I'm against this. Freedome of information and pornography are really very different topics. Porn isn't really necissary in this case, while information that may offend some governments for political reasons usually is very necissary. Removing a pornagraphic image that isnt necissary (and harmfull to the project to boot) isnt censorship or self-censorship- its editorial jugement. --Duk 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The vandalism can easily be converted, plus this is a better example of the technique in question than the first photo. Zscout370 02:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, since copyright seems to be solved. I can't see that use in vandalism is a valid reason to delete. — Asbestos | Talk 08:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. As I noted earlier about the previous picture, "seeing is believing." Quite a few people are skeptical that autofellatio is possible, and that photo is pretty convincing. The drawing is insufficient. Just as a picture is worth 1,000 words, a photo is worth about 50 drawings. The vandalism argument is untenable, and not worth further consideration. LizardWizard 08:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think these efforts to "purify" WIkipedia are becoming a real problem. I would hope enough Wikipedians have the sense to vote keep for this image, but I really think another solution needs to be found to negate the urge of some Wikipedians to involve themselves in self-censorship. A picture of a man sucking his own penis in an article about a man sucking his own penis is of encyclopedic value. To argue otherwise appears very disengenious to me, so I at least appreciate those who are arguing in favour of self-censorship; at least then we can have an honest debate. —Christiaan 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • There is already a PD image of a man sucking his penis, hence a non-PD image is unnecessary. Thuresson 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, then, perhaps you might point us to this mysterious picture? —Christiaan 21:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe everyone involved have seen the mysterious picture before. Thuresson 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Sadily the drawing isn't a sufficent replacement. We could have a drawing of the penis going in one ear and out the other just as easily... A photograph is much better for demonstrating that this really is possibleGmaxwell 13:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good illustration for the article. Noisy | Talk 09:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep If I start using this image Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg to vandalise people's user pages, can I get it nominated for deletion? Please? Zeromacnoo 14:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      *Sigh* – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
      Spare us the thought. —Christiaan 22:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep --SPUI (talk) 16:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep--what Timbo said. Exploding Boy 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete-- unencyclopedic vandal magnet. Firebug 17:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Note: This vote was user's 11th edit. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Timbo- Does this make my comment invalid? What is the required minimum number of edits before one is qualified to comment on a request for deletion? Firebug 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      No, not as such. If there is a great number of votes from usernames with few edits, though, it's suspicious. I think that may or may not have been the case in the last autofellatio.jpg vote, and I'm not sure if they were discounted or not. (It's up to the discretion of the admin doing the deleting). I wouldn't be worried about your vote not being counted, though. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - we have more important things to do than be voting for pictures which are claimed to be "vandal magnets" but are only due to being in the limelight. --Oldak Quill 17:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Perhaps being on Wikipedia for all of three weeks and having recieved nothing but vandalism on my talk page thus far has had the effect of setting me a little on edge. The vote appears to be going fairly strongly in favor of keeping the picture; I still don't understand the need for it, really, but assuming the consensus persists that it is a necessary and vital contribution to the article, would it at least be possible for someone to look into the feasibility of, say, blocking the ability to redirect a page straight to an image, or maybe blocking the use of redirects in the User_Talk namespace? I'm sure there's some way those could be used in a proper and constructive manner, but nothing comes to mind as of right now. I understand that the acts of a few vandals shouldn't be seen as representative of the Wikipedia community at large, and I'm really not going to be crying myself to sleep after being redirected to a picture of a naked man, but it's still not especially welcoming, y'know? That's all I've got to say. --MC MasterChef 19:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Are there any situations where it is legitimate to redirect a page straight to a picture file? If not, then that ability should be disabled. If there are legitimate uses for this feature, then a short blacklist should be added to prevent redirection to certain specific pictures that have been commonly used for vandalism. Firebug 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      That sounds like the thing to do. Whether or not we keep this exact picture, the very sneaky way the vandal uses it will remain. We can't guarantee that wikipedia will purge itself of every picture that could be construed as offensive when a user talk page blind-redirects to it. Just as we don't want usernames like Adolf Hitler or butt sex even though they are appropriate articles (see Wikipedia:Username), we also don't want people being redirected to pictures out of their encyclopedic context. This is a vandalism problem, and it is bigger than one picture.
      I could be wrong, but it seems the only thing we're doing to combat this douchebag vandal is to block the usernames he creates (after he's bombed various user talk pages). What we need to do, IMHO, is block by the vandal's IP (if that's feasible) as well as investigate the creative options I mentioned above (as well as any others). TIMBO (T A L K) 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE - Ironically I who actually abhor the pornography laws that exist, have become involved in issues that involve prudent constraint against excesses of those who seem oblivious to much more major dangers to human freedom, as long as they can delight in congratulating themselves with glee at imposing the burdens of their peculiar tastes and sensibilities (or lack of them) upon everyone else involved in this project.
      When the previous image was being voted upon I stated: "I am against IMPOSING censorship upon others who seek to publish such things through their own resources, but this is an internal matter of the Wikimedia projects, and a policy of greater consideration and discretion than this image represents is definitely appropriate. To say that this image is in any way "necessary", or that including this image serves the overall purposes of an Encyclopedia project is ABSURD. An adult would be arrested, thrown into jail, and accused of pedophilia in many countries if he or she were to show this image to a minor— it thus provides an apparently legitimate excuse for all manner of institutions or governments and the herd majorities of most societies to seek to ban or constrain access to Wikipedia." That argument still stands. I also quoted George Washington's statement: Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
      I repeat: I am NOT a person who supports legal censorship of others, BECAUSE I am a person who is considerate of others differences, and does not seek to impose my tastes upon others, but I DO support prudent self-censorship, that takes into consideration one's audience, which is in this case potentially most of the world.
      There are adequate illustrations, and there are links to extensive Google search for web images on the Autofellatio page. I do not oppose them because it keeps the project itself relatively safe from becoming quite so easy a target of the close-minded.
      The picture doesn't shock you, it doesn't shock me, but it irritates me profoundly that there are people who have so little regard for many of the much larger issues that are more important to address in these times, and so willfully oblivious to the reality of the vast majority of people who would be shocked at its inclusion in an Encyclopedia that aims to be a major educational tool for everyone, including young children. Can you not see that such foolishness, makes you among the very best allies of the very worst fools that you rail against? You provide a legitimate-seeming excuse for all manner of the "nanny-minded" fools who would simply use this as an opportunity to to exclude or restrict access to ALL of the information in the Wikipedia, because a few short-sighted people insist on trying to include such images as this. The reaction of the many people and groups to which you give legal ammunition to not only to seek to ban Wikipedia from many places where they have influence, but even perhaps to prosecute it under such Pornography laws as DO exist. I oppose these laws, I consider them stupid, and at least as much an agency for evil as most of the excesses that they oppose...but they are very real, and very pervasive, and very dangerous to many people who do NOT have the convenient safeguard of internet anonymity, including the person who has been the provider of the Wikimedia servers, whose will and stated opposition you, who have benefited from his generosity, are deliberately snubbing. Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading, and for the sake of those most truly devoted to spreading it. ~ Achilles 19:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading.What a jolly good point! Let's delete *everything* that the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea wouldn't want us to have--otherwise we're creating a barrier to spreading our information! No? Thought not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I'd be interested to hear more about these laws which could be used to prosecute wikipedia. I'm aware of no such U.S. law – perhaps because minors could come to wikipedia and see it? We do have a rather comprehensive disclaimer, and Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't, if we have any commitment to an un-bowdlerized encyclopedia) censored for minors. If a child unsupervised enough to come to the internet, look up wikipedia, look up autofellatio, and click on the link to this image, he might as well go to porn sites and look up much more pictures and movies.
      You bring up a point: why doesn't someone host this picture privately, and why isn't the google image search link sufficient? I think there are compelling reasons to have it on wikipedia, if we decide that linking to any such image in any way is appropriate for the article (which I think most who are actually involved in this discussion agree with). We can control the way it is presented - i.e. with no popups, spyware, and other nasty stuff that one can get by going to actual porn sites. That's why it baffled me that we replaced a link to a privately-hosted autofellatio jpg image with the google link. If you click on many of those links google gives you, there's no telling what kind of crap you'll get. It seems almost irresponsible to me for us to just direct the reader to the google search and be done with it, even though we know we're pointing them to the sneaky tricks that porn sites use.
      The google link notwithstanding, we can't even gaurantee that a privately-hosted picture we link to will be there tomorrow. It might even be another picture. Hosting the picture on wikipedia and linking to it from autofellatio, we can gaurantee quality, appropriateness, and context.
      The vandalism is a problem, but as I've said in my above comments, I think we can (or should) deal with that without deleting material from wikipedia outright. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Achilles, I'm glad you at least admit to being in favour of self-censorship. At least we can now have an honest debate. I am wholly against self-censorship but what I don't have a problem with is end-user self-censorship. You might like to take a look at a possible solution for this: meta:End-user image suppression. —Christiaan 21:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Use as vandalism is no reason to delete an image. (I know how this goes; the main image on my user page was deleted after a vandal started randomly slinging it around.) Double redirection should be fixed eventually, per bugs 850 and 1656.

      In the meantime, however, the damage dealt to the project by double-redirecting user talk pages -- not to mention random pages on less populated wikis, like tlh:quvwI'pu' tIQHa' yeSuwa' 'IHrIStoS lalDan -- is very real. Shortly before Autofellatio.jpg was deleted, Oven Fresh (I think) used some jiggery-pokery with CSS to move the image description over the image itself, with a link from there to the image. At least until the bug is fixed, it seems reasonable to reinstate this on the current image. —Korath (Talk) 20:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) Apparently, it's fixed now. Huzzah! —Korath (Talk) 07:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

    • Keep. No copyright problems, and a picture of a good looking man having about as much fun as a man can have without actually being on the inside of Kylie Minogue's knickers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Having wasted five hours today in undoing vandalism to cy.wikipedia when over 60 articles were moved and/or renamed and/or edited to point to this image, I have no tolerance for it whatsoever and would cheerfully suspend the vandal from a great height by a very thin wire wrapped round his testicles. This image is a vandal magnet, as are any other images containing the string "autofellatio" which I strongly believe should be deleted on sight. The drawing which is currently at the autofellatio article is perfectly adequate. It's all very well for you to adopt an ultraliberal policy on en:, but this is having serious consequences for smaller language wikipedias which do not have someone permanently watching recent changes. -- Arwel 00:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, for God's sake. Wikipedia is not a daring avant-gard "mind liberation" exercise. Do the high-volume, repeated, vandal attacks on newbies mean nothing to you people? The point of illustrating clitoris is that it's very difficult to get a good idea of what a clitoris looks like without seeing one. The concept of autofellatio is self-explanatory. The usefulness of this photo is nil; the damages the it has caused are massive. Slac speak up! 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dubious encyclopedic value, only use is to make a point by an absurd action, and its value that can be garnered by a simple description -- can't wait for an image depicting pedophilia or murder to come up next, such an image would be equally absurd as this one. --Wgfinley 01:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, an image depicting murder or genocide or the like would be completely unencyclopedic and offensive. Thank God we have none of those. LizardWizard 04:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • You're absolutely right, poignant photographs depicting historic events certainly are on the same level of an image from a porn site of someone orally gratifying himself. As I said before, the absurdity of the arguments for this are truly astounding. To even suggest these two things as somehow comparable is an insult to those who were slaughtered by Pol Pot and his regime. --Wgfinley 05:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep The image shows the possibility of the act in a way the drawing is unable. Is someone feels the image is too pornographic, then they can add a more clinical image, but since we do not have something better, and the image furthers the goal of the article to educate, we should keep it. Removing it due to vandalism would be pointless,as vandals could just upload another image. Removing it because it offends is imposing a point of view about what is offensive and what isn't. Gmaxwell 13:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This really is the wrong place for discussing this image. The image is not an orphan and the if's and how's of using it should be discussed at Talk:Autofellatio, not here. Thuresson 19:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mike H 20:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. The Autofellatio debate has long ceased to be about content, and is purely about some people proving they can upload porn to WP, and keep it here. how is this image copyright-problem-free? Because this time, the uploader admits from the beginning that it is in fact copyrighted? Thumbnail this image, both for reasons of fair use, and for taste (no, good taste is not the same as censorship. look at zoophilia for a brilliant example how such subjects can be treated tastefully). I don't want to sound homophobic, but this recent insistence on hosting gay porn on WP certainly starts to create a jarring effect dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    "I don't want to sound homophobic, but..."; "I don't advocate censorship, but..."; "I'm not against pornography, but..."; Exploding Boy 16:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    Um, most images on Wikipedia are copyrighted, including every single one licenced under GFDL or CC-by-SA, so what's your point? And I've long since stopped listening to the argument that a picture of autofellatio in an article about autofellatio is pornographic. —Christiaan 20:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and GFDL-compatible. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, we must. It is by our tolerance for such patently "offensive", yet totally correct and apposite content that we are defined as free. Let us not revert to Bowdler, who thought to improve upon the Bard by editing out references to naughty bits. Besides, the image is truly educational. I was not sure it could be done at all, and a drawing would never have convinced me. — Xiongtalk 11:30, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Comment: As Korath said above, the double-redirect bug that the autofellatio vandal likes so much is now fixed! Check out my test at User:Limeheadnyc/Sandbox. I believe that means that unsuspecting editors won't get autofellatio disguised as new messages. TIMBO (T A L K) 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being used to vandalise user talk pages and it's unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a source of pornography. How many people are going to need a photograph of Autofellatio for purposes other than vandalism and personal pleasure? Hedley 18:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well now that the double-redirect bug is fixed, the User_talk page vandalism is much more manageable. Sure, the vandal could put the image inline on the talk page (rather than making it seem that the image is that talk page), but that's much, much less of a nuisance (and more easily corrected if it happens). TIMBO (T A L K) 21:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this one as, no doubt, even if it did get deleted, an Autofellatio3 (Revenge of the Cock?) would appear the next day. I'm not sure how many pictures of blokes sucking themselves off exist, but I'm sure we can't keep up with them on Images for Deletion. Apart from the mockery that makes of the whole process, it has made me look more closely at the process of voting. Now I understand that, in general, voting works fairly well and the ad-hoc mechanism is easy to use and cheap to administer. However, this vote highlights what I believe is a flaw in the system. Due to the ad-hoc nature of the voting and the lack of structure there are no decisions made (and recorded) with regard to the individual criteria for deletion. This means that if one factor changes (say for example the copy-vio issue) then the whole process starts again with debates on all of the criteria for deletion starting from scratch. I don't have a fool-proof way of resolving this issue but perhaps sub-dividing the votes (or at least the complex ones) into the separate criteria for deletion might bring more clarity to the debates and the decisions. I am sure that I am far from the first person to raise this, and that this probably isn't the best place to do so but I just wanted to mention it anyway. TigerShark 00:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think this illustrates much of a problem. The consensus was to delete the old autofellatio image for a number of reasons which are different from those involved in the new image. If there were a consensus to have no image at autofellatio, then any uploaded autofellatio pictures wouldn't make it to the article -- thus they could be deleted here as orphans with little controversy. From what I can tell from this vote and the inline/linking vote at the autofellatio talk page, the rough consensus is to have a photo linked from autofellatio. Seems fine to me. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Actually I think TigerShark's comment highlights the fact that most people opposing this image are doing so on grounds other than what they're arguing (mostly because they want to avoid any debate about self-censorship).—Christiaan 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Keep - but only if efforts are made towards making it impossible to use these images in vandalism. This image is much better (and IMHO less offensive) than the older one - also there are no copyright issues (speaking of which, could we have a copy of the "permission for use" in the images discussion?). I still think that the drawing would have been informative enough - I do however not oppose this image being displayed on Autofellatio as long as IT STAYS THERE. I know that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (although I do not entirely agree with this and do know a host of people who think the same) but again I repeat that it is totally unacceptable that anybody can be tricked into watching this picture without prior consent. IMHO this image should be deleted if a software-solution to the vandalism isn't found SOON. I weigh the harm vandals can do with this picture greater than the minor information it contains. I also think that User:Christiaan should have waited a couple of weeks until the vandals had grown tired of watching for an alternative until providing this legal image of the subject. grovel 11:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

March 31

  • Image:Kampo.jpg - OR cohesion ☎ 05:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Tuning_fork_diagram.gif. Former version UV, and OB by Image:Hubblescheme.png in the sole article galaxy classification. The new version is used in other articles as well, since earlier. The new version is Creative Commons work and of higher resolution for easier galaxy identification, while the former version has also been an image with unknown source for some time now, with no clarification on its status. --Jugalator 02:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Margot Wallstrom.jpg, (Margot Wallström), OR, AB, Thuresson 03:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:MoneyJews.jpg (Moved to Image:Der Giftpilz - Gott des Juden - Nazi propaganda.jpg - silsor 21:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC))
    • Delete this offensive image derived from Nazi propaganda that does not belong on Wikipedia. IZAK 09:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that this is here precisely to display it in the article on antisemitism, as an illustration of propaganda. If it is to be in Wikipedia, it should be re-uploaded at a less offensive name, one that overtly indicates that it is Nazi propaganda. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep I am the uploader, and this image was specifically uploaded and used to describe Nazi anti-Semitism. Of course it's offensive, all images in the Anti-Semitism article are offensive. That's why it's important to show them for what they are. What's next, are we to go to through all the holocaust museums of the world and remove Nazi images? They're there for a very good reason. The inclusion of the image was subject to extensive Talk discussion, and is there by consensus. Also I would like to object that the user who is advocating deletion did not notify me, I heard about it from another. --AladdinSE 10:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the POV of --AladdinSE. I also agree with the name of the file as it is because it simply descibes the file. To follow the reasoning to censor this is as you say, a reason to raid every Holocaust museum and every library to make the past disappear (ie Nineteen Eighty Four), and get this, if the Nazi record does not exist, doesn't this put the would-be censor into the same camp as a "holocaust denier"? In other words fear begets fear and eventually fear will destroy the fearful as they make their own prophecies come true. Let the thing alone. It is what it is. MPLX/MH 22:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Just an FYI, I wish to make it known that I have not the least objection to renaming. The file name was from the download cite, I have no attachment to it. Thank you. --AladdinSE 09:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Objection: The above statement "Also I would like to object that the user who is advocating deletion did not notify me..." is INCORRECT! I first listed this image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion[1] then I chose to contact User:Jmabel see [2] who I know could be trusted to add a reliable NPOV perspective to my nomination of this image for deletion, which he did [3] and [4]. I subsequently proceeded to User talk:AladdinSE with notification of "Nazi "image" for deletion" see [5] but found that User:Jmabel had already preempted me by 8 or 9 minutes see [6] (i.e. Jmabel posted at 05:38, 31 Mar 2005 and I posted at 05:47, 31 Mar 2005) see timing at [7] on User:AladdinSE's discussion page. Unfortunately, User:AladdinSE then erased and edited my notification to him [8] making it "seem" like my notification to him was done as a "response" to Jmabel when in fact I was placing my own heading of "Nazi "image" for deletion" as I had done, see [9]. After I objected to User:AladdinSE editing my notification [10] he responded with "ONE HEADING PER ISSUE PLEASE, KEEP MY TALK PAGE NEAT" [11] and again removed my original notification to him, and making it seem that I was "tailing along" with User:Jmabel and expressing "suspicions" of my motives [12]. All a rather silly excercise and waste of time in order to "score non-existent and nonsensical points" when the real issue is my objection to his introduction of an offensive Nazi "image" and his rather tepid response that this was all "NPOV" stuff and "no need to worry" Sheesh!. IZAK 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Response: This is false. I never edited IZAK's comment on my Talk page, which the edit History will prove. IZAK's "notification" on my page was made after I was already notified by Jmabel, and yet IZAK ignored the previous notification and tried to enter a duplicate one, with a new section title, completely ignoring the fact that I had already been notified by someone else. If IZAK wanted to enter a second notification after Jmabel's, he/she should have entered it under the already created heading. Creating a new heading was clearly an attempt to try and obscure the fact that IZAK did was not the first one who notified me. The only "edit" I did was to remove the redundant second heading, and turn the massive picture that was placed o my Talk page in to a thumbnail. No notification was ever removed. The edit history [13] is there for anyone who wants to study it. --AladdinSE 06:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
As I have already stated above, I do not deny informing User:Jmabel first and then when turning to AladdinSE's page finding that Jmabel had gone "one step ahead of me" by a FEW MINUTES only (I guess a case of "great minds think alike".) Anyone is free to carefully look at my "Objection" above and look at the step-by-step report of each edit and notification and subsequent contributions to the notification process and its reasons/consequences. IZAK 07:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, lest we forget. Kim Bruning 10:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course; name is less than ideal. — Davenbelle 11:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, please re-name file (eg. anti-semitism-example.jpg) --YUL89YYZ 13:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please rename the file to make it clear that it is an example of anti-Semitism. RK 15:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, most definitely encyclopedic, but please rename it NPOVish. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Must be renamed. --171.159.192.10 14:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep obviously needs to be renamed --Wgfinley 16:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. In the immediate aftermath of World War II much of this material was banished from sight. This is a relatively inoffensive drawing (there many that were many that were much worse and therefore may be more representative of that historical period.) Listening to the BBC World Service over PRI on a Dallas radio station the other night, I learned that Henry Ford's The International Jew is openly on sale in 2005 next to Hitler's own book in Beirut. Therefore it is no small wonder that some very silly ideas are still floating around in the Middle East. After all, Henry Ford founded the American Ford Motor Car Company and Henry Ford was the only American to be singled out by Hitler in his book for praise: for his hatred of the Jews. In other words America is seen to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in the Middle East - supporting Israel and writing and publishing foundational antisemitic works. But Americans hardly ever hear this or know what it means. (When did you last read the books of Hitler and Ford?) So I believe that it good to keep such illustrations -providing that ORIGINAL captions are used with GOOD translations of the original. This keeps all of this in its historical and educational perspective. Censorship of any kind is anti-knowledge and the beginning road to the kind of horrors that the likes of Hitler and his mentor Henry Ford brought about by the Holocaust. The survival of Judaism as a belief proves that gas chambers and bullets cannot kill ideas and the survival of pathetic neo-Nazis proves that censorship only fosters more hate. Only open education (such as Wikipedia) can combat the evils that human beings conceive and try to put into practice, because open education is the light that illuminates the filth that must be cleaned up. However, to pretend that there never was any filth is absurd in and of itself. MPLX/MH 16:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good example of virulent Nazi anti-Semitism. The way to combat anti-Semitism is not to hide it, but to shine a light on it. However, the image must be renamed something more NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep under npov name. Something like 'Antisemetic stereotype of Jews' gidonb 19:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, but rename. The use of the image in an article on anti-Semitism is legitimate, but the name of the image could be considered offensive if taken in isolation (always a possibility with vandals). Rename it to indicate that it is an example of anti-Semitic propaganda. Firebug 21:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral This page is intended for discussing images that are not in use or images that are obsolete. This image is in use and the use of this image should be discussed at Talk:Anti-Semitism, not here. Thuresson 19:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Objection: (1) The opening sentence of this page states: "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded." It (and it's name as agreed upon above) is offensive and thus it is unneeded on Wikipedia. (2)This image is probably also "UE (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia" because it discriminates and promotes hate! IZAK 03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Question: I honestly did not understand IZAK's message. It made no sense at all to me. What was it referring to? As for the expanation and the caption on the illustration, it reads: "An example of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda for German children from Julius Streicher's Der Giftpilz (The Toadstool or The Poisonous Mushroom) (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/thumb.htm), Nuremberg, Stürmerverlag, 1938.) The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes. He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money." What is wrong with that? Obviously the illustration is of historic importance but what I don't get is that SOMEONE still claims COPYRIGHT of this crap! Now that is the story. Does this mean that someone legitimately bought the copyright or does it mean that heirs of the original copyright still claim copyright? Who are these Nazis or neo-Nazis? It is for all of these reasons that this rubbish needs to see light of day. FEAR always helps the oppressor! Daylight and education always makes fear disappear! MPLX/MH 04:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • MPLX: when you say: "...The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes. He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money." What is wrong with that?..." is itself a huge problem that reveals great insensitivity to the Persecution of the Jews. You also underestimate the guile of those who want to sneak-in Anti-Semitism into Wikipedia "under the radar" while hiding behind all sorts of lame "NPOV" arguments and excuses. There is no room for messages of hate on Wikipedia in whatever guise they may come to us. What is so hard to grasp about that? IZAK 04:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IZAK: I did not say what you are suggesting that I said. I merely quoted the explanation for the orignal caption. The caption is historic and it was part of a culture that once existed in Germany. The explanation (which you did not quote), said: "An example of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda for German children from Julius Streicher's Der Giftpilz (The Toadstool or The Poisonous Mushroom) (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/thumb.htm), Nuremberg, Stürmerverlag, 1938.)" Now I ask again, what is wrong with that? The caption is not new, it is the historic caption and to change it changes the historic nature of the cartoon. Censorship is wrong because what you censor today others (like the Nazis of old) are also able to censor, only what they would censor is not what you would censor. Freedom of speech and expression will alway destroy dictators. As for some idiots trying to "use" Wikipedia to spread hate, I don't think so. They have the wrong forum because 90% of the people here believe in freedom of speech. For hatemongers to succeed they have to find a dark little corner that they can control. Wikipedia is no dark little corner, it is a beacon of light. As such, when this cartoon is seen in the light of day 90% of the people will understand it for what it is. As for trying to stop hate, well forget it and you sure can't do that by censoring the 90%. Dictators thrive on censorship. Leave this cartoon alone with its original caption and 90% of the people will understand it for what it is. We have laws and police personnel to enforce them to protect freedom, and that is what protects us from the 10%. MPLX/MH 22:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep/Rename. What Jayjg said. I have an authoritative (IDF Publishers) encyclopedia which has that image, and ones much, much worse. El_C 04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep but rename, and please watch the use of it...! -- Olve 08:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep/Rename I cringe of revulsion every time I bump into those, but I must agree, exposing them in the right context is the way to fight it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep/Rename It must be renamed as a clear example of Nazi propoganda, but anti-Semitism should not be shoved under the carpet, it must be known as such. E=MC^2 T@lk
Neutral. This image is linked from only a user page. Is there a standing Wikipedia policy on whether or not it is inappropriate for users to have nude photos on their user pages? Firebug 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not as such, but user pages aren't personal webspace--they belong to the community and it's reasonable for people to remove content the community would prefer not be on there. Demi T/C 20:11, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
This was previously in the Charlotte Ross article itself. Check the edit history in the article. I have since reverted to another screencap (sans ass). Delete. Mike H 06:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, as Firebug mentions it is ONLY on MY user page. Therefore it's not a vandalism. -- TrojanMan 08:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Dude, you placed it in the Charlotte Ross article. Don't lie; we can all look at the edit history. Mike H 09:10, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it's NOW only in MY user page. -- TrojanMan 21:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Totally UE.--Jyril 16:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, I think its encyclopedic, and put it back in the article, why not? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If nothing else, because it's a doctored collage rather than a photograph or record of any kind? Demi T/C 20:11, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
    • Move to wikiporn :-) Bogdan | Talk 21:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 21:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

April 1

  • Image:Blogstreetphoto.jpg OR LeonWhite 01:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Earth.jpg - OR UV - Based on cloud pattern, probably an Apollo 17 image. There are plenty of those ready for use. Image also has no description page and displays an error message. (SEWilco 03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Image:100 17822.jpg OR, UE (originally listed as CSD) RedWolf 05:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg
    • Delete this highly offensive anti-Israel "caricature" spoofing Jaws that depicts the POV that Israel is the aggressive "shark" and that the Palestinians are poor little innocent "victims". This is raw pro-Arab propaganda and unfortunately fits the pattern of User:AladdinSE's insertion of the offensive Image:MoneyJews.jpg taken from the Nazis, see vote for its deletion above (March 31). IZAK 06:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete I echo IZAK. This is complete propaganda, this does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Unlike Image:MoneyJews.jpg, this is modern media and cannot be seen as an ancient example of propaganda not extant anymore. It is not as easy to justify keeping it in Wikipedia as an "example" of the way Arabs feel toward the US and Israel. This is hate that is being spread now. It is not legitimte NPOV knowledge for an encyclopedia. E=MC^2User_talk:E=MC^2\T@lk
    • Keep. This image is in use in an article and is not an orphan nor meets the requirements for deletion. What's more it's inclusion in the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict was subject to extensive consensus in Talk. --AladdinSE 06:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Objections: This image too, cearly qualifies for deletion because: (1) The opening sentence of this page states: "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded." It is offensive and thus it is unneeded on Wikipedia. (2)This image is probably also "UE (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia" because it discriminates and promotes hate! IZAK 07:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I doubt that you'll garner much support for this extraordinary theory. I wish you'd carefully read what other Wikipedians are telling you in response to these misplaced and fevered displays of self-righteousness.--AladdinSE 07:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Aladdin: Kindly avoid your tone of condescension. When someone -- anyone -- introduces highly objectionable Anti-Semitic images or information on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, and that any decent human being would find objectionable, it MUST be examined and evaluated regardless of "public opinion" (which is not always sensitive enough to the Persecution of the Jews under various circumstances, as history has shown, right?) It is nothing to pooh-pooh about. I am reading what other Wikipedians are saying, but at the same time, I am now keeping a rather careful eye on what you are doing and the way you are going about doing things here at Wikipedia. I hope that over the course of time, your motives will be proven to be as "pure" as you make them appear to be! IZAK 09:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • It is quite futile to contend further. My own words fall on deaf ears. Instead I will quote Firebug: "I think that you need to get a little less touchy about the contributions of others, and focus more on what you can add to Wikipedia." Still, watch me all you please, I am not in the least perturbed. --AladdinSE 09:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. This image is included in an article on the Arab-Israeli conflict to illustrate views that are widespread in the Arab world. Offensive as these views may be to Americans and Israelis, including them as a POV specifically attributed to one of the parties in the conflict does not mean that the image should be deleted or that the article itself violates NPOV. With all due respect, IZAK, I think that you need to get a little less touchy about the contributions of others, and focus more on what you can add to Wikipedia. We do no one any good by burying offensive views under a rock. Firebug 07:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Less bigotry and more positive contributions would be good. Chamaeleon 07:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Del. We should not spread hatred as a legitimate encyclopedic knowledge. Unless clearly marked as a blood libel, representing one party as a cuddly boy-victim and another as a child-eating shark is unacceptable. BTW, what is its source/date/license? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleting the image won't change the fact that a significant number of Arabs (and quite a few Europeans, as well) feel that way. Including political cartoons that reflect a widespread viewpoint on one side, and clearly attributing such as the view of that side and not as objective fact, is perfectly legitimate. If someone wants to include a political cartoon showing the Israeli and/or American POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict, then they should do so, after appropriate discussion. I also don't agree that this image constitues a blood libel. Criticizing the actions of the State of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, although it has often been used as a cover for anti-Semitism. Firebug 10:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry we disagree here. There is a red line between political cartoon and propaganda of hate. You may convince me if you find an image that is even remotely close to devouring children for any other country listed in military occupation. I don't mind criticism of Israel's action or policies (it's everyone's hobby, including myself), but this looks more like those allegations of the IDF using DU ammo, booby-trapping toys, eradiating people at checkpoints, Jenin massacre, etc. - too many to even list here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, what I'm about to say is a tad off-topic and inflamatory, but I can't resist. Humus, would you consider this "an image that is even remotely close to devouring children" regarding a military occupation? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course not. My objection is not to the claim that this cartoon reflects public sentiment in some circles, but to the fact that it carries emotional charge dehumanizing Jews. Let's keep in mind that public sentiment can be conflagrated by inflammatory pictures. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I find your sarcasm misguided. Those images are clearly presented in an encyclopedic context to demonstrate the intensity of propaganda of hate, hence their source/date are so important. OTOH, this one is used to justify/amplify propaganda of hate. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What it sounds to me like you're saying is that it's OK to have inflammatory propaganda images as long as their impact is to support your own POV by making the opposite POV look bad. - Mustafaa 06:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Glad you've asked. Equal opportunity disgust for any propaganda of religious/ethnic hatred. Bonus points if it's state-sponsored. WP should not promote any such hatred under a diguise of encyclopedic knowledge. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, agree with Firebug. --Zero 11:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's no question that the vast majority of Arabs feels that politics of the USA are pro-Israeli, but this sketch also demonizes Israel, depicting it as a shark, so it serves more than its alleged purpose. I'd also like to ask the uploader what's the source of this (ugly) caricature, as he/she seems to have a collection of such items. Etz Haim 14:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does describe a political idea yet is very Anti-American/Israeli in nature. Yes it is a reality yet I believe it is very offensive to many people who disagree with the image's political attitude to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.--ChanochGruenman 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Aladdin, what's the source of the image, and why do you think it's in the public domain? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Please refer to the extensive Talk section in which source, relevancy and other matters were discussed at length. The picture, and the inclusion in the article, was agreed to in Talk. --AladdinSE 18:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • That wasn't a particularly helpful answer. After spending far too long reading through the talk, I find that the only mention of source is your contention that it "was released into free public internet circulation by a Diaspora Palestinian artist." You haven't said who the artist is, or offered any link or evidence that you didn't simply scan it from a book or get it off the Internet. I would tend to agree with Humus Sapien's characterization of it as a "cartoon of unknown origin and date". Unless you provide better source information, it'll probably listed on WP:PUI next, if it survives the IFD process. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I strongly believe there is use for dehumanizing images - just like the Nazi image - if presented in a neutral framework, for example to illustrate extremism in the press. However, since it is used only for a different purpose - to strengthen a POV, I believe it should be removed. gidonb 22:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep The image is not anti-semitic, it is just a cartoon that demonstrates a humorous way of looking at the pro-arab side of the conflict. No-one is denying that the cartoon is biased, but its inclusion in an article is perfectly fair. If there needs to be more explanation in the caption of the picture to make it more fair, then that should be done.Yuber 00:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Eliezer 09:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete I echo IZAK. This is complete propaganda, this does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Chmouel 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. No valid reason for deletion has even been offered. Precedents include Image:Al-Farida, Lebanon pre-1967 war.jpg, Image:Sov-mold-aug-27-1971.jpg, and indeed Image:AntiJapanesePropagandaTakeDayOff.gif; if this is deleted as "propaganda", so should those be. - Mustafaa 09:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • PS: This image excellently illustrates the POV that it was being used to illustrate, and most certainly does not constitute a "blood libel". Levying accusations of "blood libel" against a cartoon which is very clearly anti-Israeli and makes no allusion at all to Jews or Judaism is a great example of the political overuse of the accusation of anti-Semitism of which Danny eloquently complained. - Mustafaa 10:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As it stands for now, I find that this picture serves a propogandist role in the article. Principally, the thumb as well as the image caption is highly lacking.
1. The reader can't tell from the thumb that half of the Palestinian's torso and two of his limbs had been ripped apart —in the teeth does not (yet) mean getting ripped apart by them— in terms of the reader's expectation for graphic violence.
2. Once the reader clicks on the thumb and sees the pic, s/he is then faced with an equally inadequate caption. It needs to mention the country of origin, the newspaper, the date and year; licensing notwithstanding, it just dosen't strike me as particularly professional to ommit these details, for such an article.
3. a. Jews and Israelis (henceforth, I/J) are often rather interchangable in Arab cartoons – in that sense, Bauer is right. Because the identifying symbol, the star of david, has been used to identify Jews in drawings before the State of Israel was founded, whereas post-1948, it is depicted at the centre of its flag.
b. While necessary to the pun, note that the Arab crowed, the American, and the Palestinian are human, whereas the I/J is a beast. It is perhaps noteworthy that the American, also the enemy, is not portrayed in such unflattering terms. The I/J beast itself here is tame-looking, though the suffering of the victim, again, particularly graphic. (examples of I/J as non-beast but graphic victimization: [14]; egs. of demonic I/J beasts but mild victimization: [15], [16], [17]).
4. I'm rather puzzled that this article has only two pics (aside from maps) in it, both Arab newspaper cartoons critical of Israel. I'm surprised there aren't any real photos, plural (not just an Israeli cartoon to counterbalance).
It is an illustrative illustration, but it lacks all these qualifications (and varifications) which can be arrived at through consensus, qualifications which can be linked, too. If my opinion matters, one of the editors who is in favour of it being kept, would take it out of the article until such consensus as per presentation could be established. Then I'll vote Keep. Otherwise, its placement as such is propagandist, so, in the interim (hopefuly), I am voting Delete. Addendum: some but not all of my concerns have been met. For now, Abstain.
P.S. I wish this could be discussed somewhere else — I hate the IfD board most of all, it is so scrolly, these IfDs should get their own page, it is impractical to have the IfD set this way, with 1% of entries taking such a huge amount of space. El_C 12:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I provisionally NPOV'd the image (not thumb) caption. El_C 13:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Added Iranian.com source to image; restroed PD status. Removing my delete vote as per Mustafaa's changes to thumb caption. El_C 23:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • BTW, your final comment on the absence of any "real photos" is a good point. I'll keep an eye out; there must be some in the public domain. - Mustafaa 06:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Not many, I'm afraid. I don't think either the govt. of Israel or of respective Arab countries have released much (of that, and in general) material into the public domain. Likely some images could be obtained upon request. El_C 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course. Davenbelle 10:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep It's funny, and ment to be what it is: a political cartoon. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE: This cartoon lacks a point of origin. It lacks authentication of any sort. Obviously it has been previously cut out of something and then uploaded. Cut out of what? Whatever it was probably had a COPYRIGHT tag and because the image has been altered, fair use cannot be claimed. We are told that it has something to do with the Middle East. How do we know that? The cartoon has a Middle East theme, but the cartoon could have appeared in some publication that first appeared in Kansas for all we know. This is not historic, it is not informative, it is just a partial cartoon and as such it does not meet any criteria for inclusion. The anti-semitic element raised was entirely wrong because it diverted attention away from what the real problem is with the cartoon. If this same cartoon was shown in its entirety and if it had copyright clearance and if it had appeared in some major publication in the Middle East where it had caused a major reaction, then it might be worthy of inclusion. As it stands it is just scribble. MPLX/MH 16:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, and invalid listing: disagreeing with the point of view expressed is no cause for deletion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. There was extensive discussion on the talk page, and consensus was finally reached. To put the image up for deletion now is to reject that consensus for no new reason. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. silsor 21:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Illustrates well the view in the Arab world, exactly what it is meant to do. Hardly too offensive for a political caricature.--Jyril 21:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Ezra Wax 08:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • People involved in voting should find interest in meta:End-user image suppression. Thuresson 22:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - the perspective should be covered in this (or another) article, but it a) doesn't make the point very well; b) isn't needed to make the point (the caption, as it stands, is actually more informative). --Leifern 09:01, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
    • Delete. I rarely ever say this, and am careful whenever I say this, but this cartoon is anti-Semitic. The picturing of democratic Israel as a "violent shark" that is trying to kill the "human" Palestinians, especially given the events since the Peace Summit, with the "helpless" dictator-based Arabs states on the sidelines while the "arrogant guard" United States allows the shark to tear at the person is absolute bigotry. The cartoon is not only outdated when considering the times but more to the point and designed as a piece of propaganda, which considering what has been happening in the last month is something only Arafat loyalists would support, and it has been made well known by the media who control public opinion that Arafat was a corrupt dictator who held his people back. Failure to delete this anti-Semitic crap would be a failure for the Wikipedia, as it shows that the site is run by mobocracy instead of democracy, and where mob rule is present truths are what the mob says are truths. Evolver of Borg 19:56 Apr 3 (UTC)
      • 1: Being anti-Israeli is not the same as being anti-Semitic, and this has no element whatsoever of the latter. 2: Being anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic is not a reason for deletion; it's being used to illustrate a POV. - Mustafaa 11:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • 1: You are right in the first instance case. However, anti-Israel is only in regards to Israeli politics. When you get into comparisons between Jewish Israel and the other states which are clearly unreasonable, that is anti-Semitic. 2: Yes, it is. As we all know Wikipedia's policy is NPOV. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a website for displaying political cartoons, it is an encyclopedia providing general information, not offensive and POV images. Evolver of Borg 18:33 Apr 4 (UTC)
    • Delete. First, without information on the source, we can't know that this came from a mid-east source; it might have originated on an anti-Semitic website for all we know; and we also don't have the author's permission. Second, the representation of Israel as the only non-human in the image reeks of anti-Semitism. I can't see a way in which this cartoon could be used in an NPOV manner. Finally, unlike some of the Nazi cartoons in use, this one is of no historical importance. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep *sigh*. —Christiaan 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • DEL --Neria 02:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:40m.jpg Forgot to put a decent name on my upload. Sorry- Good one is Image:GodOfCookerySmallPoster.jpg. --Staecker 07:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:old_wiki_image.jpg - Pornographic material. Likely vandal. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Shark big.jpg - CV, see http://www.headington.org.uk/history/misc/shark.htm. Replaced by Image:Oxford shark.jpg which was already on wikipedia. -- SGBailey 10:51, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • Delete - I can confirm this is a copyvio, we had an email from the copyright holder to the foundation complaining about this -- sannse (talk) 09:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Eisenhower-Interstate-200.PNG, obsoleted by Image:Eisenhower Interstate System.png in the correct color and much larger. --SPUI (talk) 15:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Jennabush2.jpg - UV, and WP:IS couldn't find the source. Replaced with Image:Jenna and Barbara Bush behind Laura Bush.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Namarie tengwar ar.jpg - reproducing a long poem is not fair use, but reproducing a few lines is. I replaced it with Image:Namarie tengwar ar.PNG, cropped and converted. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:The Independent.jpg OR,OB (Was listed as a CSD) RedWolf 17:35, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Villianc.jpg, OB by commons:Image:Villianc.jpg, Thuresson 17:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:BGgerb2.gif, OB by [18] in Commons. - Mailer Diablo 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Selection of zines.jpg, OB by Image:UK and US zines.jpg - Mailer Diablo 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Bigcancoat.png, OB by [19] in Commons - Mailer Diablo 20:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:RyanLiestman.jpg. Image illustrating an article which has been listed for VfD, which the poster agrees should be deleted. RickK 21:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Heroru_rib.PNG, OB and Orphaned, since no ribbon was issued for this medal. Zscout370 23:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Herosu_rib.PNG, OB and Orphaned, due to the same reasons as Image:Heroru_rib.PNG. Zscout370 23:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Note, I uploaded both this and Heroru_rib.png.)
  • Image:Kanenobu1.JPG, (Kanenobu), UE UV - no image should have "wikipedia.com" on it, methinks. --Tothebarricades.tk 23:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Object. The "wikipedia.com" was easy enough to fix; that's what the "rev" link is for. And it isn't an orphan. dbenbenn | talk 02:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 2

  • It seems to fall clearly within the parody/satire portion of the fair use doctrine. 63.173.114.141 04:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This images was used for the Wikipedia April Fools Joke this year. My vote is to keep. Zscout370 04:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the Wikipedia servers are located in the United States, not China, I don't think China's laws are relevant here. How would any such claims be enforced? Some images on Wikipedia certainly violate the laws of Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. So what? Firebug 10:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • China's laws are not enforcable here. There's no reason to delete this. Cburnett 16:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 3

  • Delete. I can't think of any legitimate encyclopedic use for this image, and it looks as though it might be used in vandalism. Firebug 09:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 4

  • Image:John Paul in State 2.jpg. Copied directly from [22]. "Fair use" does not mean "freely take any image from anywhere on the Internet". silsor 00:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, surely there is a Wikipedian somewhere close enough to take a picture and put it on Commons. Alphax τεχ 00:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • KEEP - I specifically stated where I got the image from in the image description. The guy who took the picture was probably one of who knows how many photographers who took the image at the exact same time. What am I supposed to do? Get press credientals, fly all the way to the Vatican City and take a picture of him lying in state? Unless you have the money for me to get press credientals and fly there I do not see that happening. JesseG 00:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that we can copy any images from news sites as long as they were difficult to shoot? silsor 00:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you're unable to fly to Rome, there are lots of Wikipedians who live in Rome and should have opportunity to take pictures. Thuresson 02:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, delete it. At first I thought it might be a screen capture and might be salvaged that way, but the source is Getty Images, not a TV broadcast. --iMb~Meow 00:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete Image obviously does not fall within Fair Use. I've traced the source to [23] however, which outlines it's licensing policy.
Note: All editorial images subject to the following: For editorial use only. Additional clearance required for commercial, wireless, internet or promotional use, contact your local office. NO NBA, F.A. PREMIER LEAGUE IMAGES MAY BE DOWNLOADED OR USED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION. AFP IMAGES ARE SUBJECT TO TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS. Images may not be altered or modified. Getty Images makes no representations or warranties regarding names, trademarks or logos appearing in the images. See Editorial License Agreement or contact your local office.
If we get permission for it first from Getty Images, we can still use this image. If not, we are indeed violating copyright. Which is bad. --Fangz 00:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've added imagevio and stuff now... Does this discussion belong here? --Fangz 00:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DELETE Take the image and delete it. I do not care any more. I removed the image from the article. I am also going to reevalulate whether or not I want to keep contributing stuff to this site.
JesseG 01:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
You're just not allowed to take things from wherever and upload them here, regardless of whether or not you say "I took it from here." It's not the way fair use works, and getting into a hissy fit because people called you on it is hardly good form. Mike H 08:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

End
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=11871033"