Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:5-dead-goebbels.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:5-dead-goebbels.jpg

edit

No evidence that the author died before 1951. Kelly (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, the 1951 clause is only for identified authors, the cameraman was never seemingly named as it was a videoreel shot for official state purposes (and one could suggest, propaganda). Sherurcij (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Image was taken in Berlin, Germany by Soviet troops, there is no evidence, that the photo was first published in the Ukraine, but this file was at first tagges as PD-Russia, it was only changed after the Copyright in Russia was changed to 70pma. Most likly PD-Ukraine is just tagged, because it is not PD in Russia any more. sугсго 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the Ukranian template requires the work be Ukranian or Soviet to be Public Domain in the Ukraine. It's ambiguous at best, and something to be argued about with the people who designed the template, the people who moved PD-Russia to PD-Ukraine and others...not to be settled on the Deletion forum with individual files. Sherurcij (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beside of that: no exact source is mentioned! So who can prove that this file os PD-Ukrainia or something else? Delete because of incomplete source information. -- High Contrast (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the source information, I hope that helps :) Sherurcij (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You point to an 11-2 "Keep" vote that is being appealed as as "custom that we delete these files"? That seems like shaky ground at best, and you can't really point to a policy about interfering in private family matters as relevant to somebody who's been dead more than fifty years...can we show the body of JFK? King Tut? Where will your insanity end? You've tried to have photos of Goebbels, Al-Zarqawi and American soldiers all deleted from the project because you consider them "morally repugnant", I'd suggest it's your blatant POV and revisionism that's so repugnant. Sherurcij (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could at least demonstrate a minimum of respect for your living fellow contributors of Commons. Your vituperation is totally out of order. Rama (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I demand an immediate apology for uttering "revisionism" at me. Rama (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to censor myself? To historically revise my opinion of your history of attempts to have files deleted? Shall I excise any such mentions? Sherurcij (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I merely want you to refrain from insulting people and committing libel, but since you refuse to do so, I have filed a complain. Rama (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg closed today as Kept, so I think the argument of "omg, dead bodies! last week we decided to delete them all and start a purge!" is thoroughly discredited. We have had one or two isolated instances of administrators injecting their own POV and making bad judgment calls deleting pictures they found "distasteful", we have the same with sketches of sexual positions - that's just how administrators are. Their flawed actions do not set a precedent for policy, and are typically overturned. Sherurcij (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sketches of sexual positions have a demonstrable encyclopedic value, and humiliate nobody. That is quite the opposite of parading bodies of defeated enemies.
My argument is that both in text and in practice, we do not tolerate this sort of images; I do not think that you can deny this. And that is without even addressing the copyright status of the images in question. Rama (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think Sherurcij has made a good point here. Rama may feel that sketches of sexual positions humiliate nobody. Personally I agree that they have value here, but I am sure there are lots of people who don't wish to have them covered, who would argue that they outrage them, and can dream up scenarios in which sketches of sexual positions humiliate them. We all have unexamined assumptions. It is just normal human fallibility. I suspect an unexamined assumption here, in the unexplained distinction as to why potentially controversial images of sexual positions deserve defending, and potentially controversial images of dead bodies automatically deserve deletion.
Attitudes towards dead bodies is very culturally relative. A couple of years ago a CBC journalist did a segment explaining why grief-stricken Palestinian mobs carry around recently killed civilians, with their blood and gore still on them, and even jam reporters cameras into the corpses' faces. What we find, or don't find, morally repugnant about images of dead bodies, is culturally relative. Our personal moral repugnance is also a "learned response". We can choose to deal with our personal moral repugnance in other ways than nominations for deletion. This image is not some kind of snuff-porn.
If I understand Sherurcij's position, he thinks it has historical value, and, if I understand Rama's position, he thinks it doesn't. I suggest if we confine this discussion to the issue of whether the image has historical value. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP If the picture was taken by Russian military then wouldn't it be a work of the Russian government, it states it came from the Soviet archives. That should meet public domain criteria. Also this image is used on 8 pages in 6 projects. I'll again state that deleting distasteful pictures is NOT congruent with the ideals of wikimedia which is by definition non-biased and non-censored. These images, and the video they came from, document a historically significant event in my opinion. If we can use the SEAL's picture as justification for deleting recently deceased people, the same justification can't be used here since these people died over 60 years ago. Also we should be able to use Zarqawi as a policy to keep images that one finds "morally repugnant" but has a historical basis for being kept. Raeky (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my argument does apply here. You might not be agreed, but I do make it. And what does the Russian Army have to do with anything? The Russian Army does not make its work systematically public domain, and the image was make in Germany, so it is life+70 year, and thus obviously not in the public domain. Rama (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know the official copyright status of images from the old Soviet Union? I know that the USSR was not a signatory to international copyright agreements well into the second half of the 20th Century. Both Farley Mowat and Robert Heinlein toured the USSR because the USSR routinely published pirate copies of books. They would pick a (low) royalty rate, and pay rubles into an account on the Western author's behalf. But the western author had to go to the USSR to spend those rubles -- which both Mowat and Heinlein did. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I asked those challenging the picture to abandon arguments based on "moral repugnance", and instead address whether the image had historical value. Two weeks later, and no challenger has responded. So I am officialy stating a keep opinion here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dead people for the sake of it have no historical value, certainly not. Furthermore, the copyright status of the file is at best unclear. Rama (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if dead people have no historical value, how do you account for the use of this image on half a dozen wikis? Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP What's wrong with u people? Who are u to deprive comming generations (birth)right to our history? Who are u to decide what's relevant. Don't fancy the picture? Turn away! Make u sick? Go away! But leave important historic material to people who have sense enough to appreciate them and understand their true value. It's a shocking picture, no doubt. But it was a shocking war! And the picture did caught a tiny fraction of our history; removing it will be our loss! Correct me if I'm wrong! swed

Deleted. There is no proof given that the author died before 1951 so there is no proof this image is PD. Abigor talk 21:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:5-dead-goebbels.jpg&oldid=418516720"