File talk:Pandas and ppl.jpg

I'm removing the dispute of the rationale for intelligent design.

NFCC #8 currently states: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. The template implies that the image must be necessary to the article, and thus misrepresents NFCC #8. Therefore, it represents the subjective impression of the user who placed the template rather than an expression of a valid NFCC criterion, so the template will be promptly removed.

Several books are watersheds in the advocacy of intelligent design. The most important ones are Of Pandas and People, Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box. The rationale is beyond adequate. ... Kenosis 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The non-free book cover is not necessary to discuss this book in context of the article. Removal of the image from the article would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since #8 is a subjective criterion, it must be decided by consensus. This has already been consensused by the article editors that this image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. If a new consensus is sought, please join in on the article discussion and attempt to affect consensus. ... Kenosis 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Subjective is an understatement, and I tire of this piffle by folks like Abu Badali and "We see everything". Why not just get rid of all images based on the criterion of #8. We'll just ignore the fact that mankind has used images to further comprehension for 10,000 years or more. This shit of trying to delete every image is Philistine pig-ignorance at its most depraved level. •Jim62sch• 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the template, seems unwarranted. I also suggest writing and adding a proper free use justification by using the Template:Non-free_use_rationale thusly:

Description= Of Pandas And People

Source= Scan of original

Portion= Cover

Low_resolution= It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.

Purpose= It illustrates an educational article about the entity that the logo represents. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.

Replaceability= It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

other_information= The image is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the logo.

Odd nature 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider this image to give a significant contribution to the two pages where it is used, in a way that no amount of text could adequately replace.

• For the page "Of Pandas and People", the image is obviously a legitimate use, being an illustration of the topic of the page.
• For the page "Intelligent design", it is a significant contribution to the relevant section, that could not be adequately replaced by text. It shows the major book that has been proposed for presenting the ideas of Intelligent Design in schools. The matter of schools is a major source of the social significance of the Intelligent Design movement. The book was a focus for the critically important legal case of Kitzmiller vs Dover, concerning advocacy for Intelligent Design and creationism in schools. For wikipedia readers, a directly relevant image of the very object under consideration in the section provides a useful information in a visual form that no amount of text can adequately replace.

Hope this helps... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fed Up

I want to assume good faith here, but I am still fed up. A template has just been placed requesting that the image be reduced. This image IS reduced already! It already meets all the requirements listed on the template in its current form!

The extent of quibbling on this image is becoming downright vexatious. There is no way this image could be used as a facsimile of the original or otherwise to damage the concerns of the copyright holder. There is no rational basis for demanding further reduction, and it looks to me that all these demands are just part of some campaign to make life as impossible as you can for any non-free image.

I mean this to be a firm but civil complaint and request for your consideration. I think the problem is that you have a sweeping concern with non-free images in general. Could you please address that directly, rather than raise a hundred peripheral concerns that burn up time and effort by your wikipedia colleagues who are also trying to work in good faith for the benefit of the whole project.

We may have a difference of opinion on whether non-free images should be used in the encyclopedia. I don't mind that, and I welcome constructive search for a consensus on such matters. I accept your good faith in this. But I am asking you please, as a consideration to others, that you do not pursue that matter merely by making a long series of secondary complaints on non-free images. Thank you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so upset about a resize request - this is non-controversial housekeeping and is done all the time. Is the image ever going to be displayed at its full resolution in an article? Why does the image need to be of a larger resolution than would be required by any legitimate encyclopedic usage? It's not it's a deletion criteria or anything - actually, reducing the image to a smaller size makes it less likely that an image will be deleted, because it eliminates possible objections on the grounds of WP:NFCC#3b. Why are you angry about this? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not upset at one resize request. I am upset at hundreds of poorly founded objections to trivialities, all at once. With respect, you are being disruptive. I don't mean that as an insult, but as a plain and firm statement of the effects of this campaign you are on. It seems you have something of a history for this kind of thing.

I am going to remove the template. I don't see any formal status that indicates this removal is improper. The image as it stands already meets the requirements described in the template. The full resolution of the image is available at the click of a button for interested users and this "full size" is well reduced below the original book cover. It is displayed within the articles at a reduced size that makes the subtitle text unreadable. The larger size is available for readers who are interested, without being in the slightest conflict with any advisory guidelines. The size of the image is not any kind of consideration for the deletion process now underway. I prefer to let the image as it stands be available to let the community determine whether or not use of this image is within the WP:NFCC guidelines.

I am also considering raising the matter in one of the dispute resolution forum. I don't mean that as an attack on you, but as a way of bringing some general community oversight to the issue to see if a consensus can be reached on what is reasonable behavior with respect to objections concerning non-free images. No offense is intended to you personally by this. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, clicking on the low-resolution image merely brings up another identical low-resolution image. ... Kenosis 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the thumb nail image supplied in the pages of Intelligent design and Of Pandas and People. Click on the thumbnail in the main space articles, and you get the low resolution image as uploaded. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. ... Kenosis 00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad fair use rationale for Intelligent design

The rationale doesn't explain how having a visual image of the book in any way enhances the reader's understanding of intellegent design. Knowing what a book looks like does not help the reader understand the significance of the book or understand its content. It's just decorative. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, its more than just decorative. An image usually has additional information in the iconography. In this case the image shows a Panda eating bamboo, and in particular grasping it with the curious feature called the "Pandas thumb", widely used as an example of evolutionary exaptation. The point here is to contrast the notion that the Pandas thumb is there by intelligent design, or else by evolutionary processing working without any design to give a curious transformation of a structure to a function, in a manner that is rather unlike the operation of a design upon the structure of the paw.

I'll extend the rationale a bit to try and explain the relevance of the iconography and its significance.

In this case, though I do consider that this is a significant point, it is a comparatively minor one. On the other hand, I've just also tackled this question of the iconography of an image, and its relationship to understanding, in a slightly longer consideration of a far more significant image used in the cover of Darwin's Black Box. See the discussion page.

The over riding point is that images often have significance that really requires a bit of background to appreciate. I can try and explain it a bit better, but it's a point that has more force as you get more background on the topic. This is not unusual, or an excuse. It's normal for significant aspects of images to become more apparent with more study. The same is true for all kinds of other information items, like equations for example. They are significant, even the significance is not immediately apparent to a novice. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can explain the significance to me in text, the article can also explain the significance in text. If the significance isn't accessible to the ordinary reader, the image certainly fails our nonfree media requirements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Explanation in text is significantly enhanced by directly relevant imagery, and gives a level of understanding that cannot be replaced by text only. I can describe to you WHY it is significant, but without the image to check, your understanding is bound to remain less. This ought to be completely uncontroversial. The importance of images for understanding and pedagogy is obvious. Sure, you can try and explain this with text, but the result is inferior, and less understandable. It is a significant degradation in quality.

I'm generally concerned that the campaign to get rid of non-free content has overstepped the mark in all kinds of ways. If the English wikipedia had decided to go the way of the German wikipedia, and disallow non-free content entirely as a matter of principle, then I could live with that I would comply. But I'll be arguing against making that change to English wikipedia policy.

The current situation is that the English wikipedia did decide to have an exemption policy. My concern is that the plain meaning of the policy is being lost in the effort to put every obstacle possible in the way of non-free content. The result is eroding the quality of understanding that is available in wikipedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any references for the claims of significant iconography in the book cover? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are, it enhances the argument for using the cover on an article where it can be discussed as an artistic work: on the article about the book. The other articles can just say "This book has significant iconography on its cover" and link to the article about the book. I agree with the impression that these rationales are tending towards original research, making strong claims of opinion about the covers. References would be helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AAARGHH. Fed up again.

Sheesh. Now we have tags on the rationale for verifiable claims. I am well and truly fed up at this point. You clowns won't be satisfied until you have a full article in place. This is not an article. It is an explanation of the purpose to which the image is to be used. The sheer bloody minded determination to put endless hoops and obstacles in the way of all non-free content seems to be aimed at wearing down the opposition by exhaustion.

For my part, it has worked. I give up. You win. I'm NOT going to write a whole bloody referenced article here. I could; nothing here is particularly surprising. But I have better things to do. I am positive that sixteen other excuses would pop up in any case. You want my advice? Leave the rationale alone. It's a rationale. It's the reasons being given for use of the image in the article. It's not an article itself. If you insist on leaving these absurd tags in place, feel free. I am through with beating my head against a brick wall on this.

Actually, I think this is whole thing is symptomatic of a larger wikipedia problem. The notion of "anyone can edit" is a great idea, and it has allowed all kinds of genuinely useful information to come in to wikipedia. I don't want wikipedia to lose that. But there is a problem that arises when anyone pops in to start rewriting technical subjects where there's already been good input from people with real expertise on the subject at hand; or when a contentious subject — particular a minor one with low activity — just keeps shifting from POV to POV over the years as different editors come and go. I'd like to see wikipedia have some kind of review process in place so that general readers get to see a somewhat stable version of the article by default, with the latest version always available as an option. I think Wikipedia:Flagged revisions is a step in the right direction.

Determination to make some kind of principled stand on non-free content is eroding the quality of information here; but there are so many other more serious problems with the quality of information that I am just giving up on this image stupidity.

Excuse my frustration. I am sure you are working in good faith for what you think is the good of the project. I'm not meaning this as a personal attack on other editors. But it is an expression of my own frustration and irritation over the way this image thing has been pursued. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Snarky edit summaries & bogus templates

1. "'added emphasis' would not be needed if the editor in question did not load-up the dispute by quoting irrelevant text from the policy (or is the editor claiming "Multiple items", "An entire work" or "high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate" is an issue?).
2. The 'use in two articles' is already dealt with in the 'Non-free use media rationale' by listing rationales for both articles.
3. As the template states that the dispute can be "addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale", and "an appropriate non-free use rationale" already exists, the appropriate action is to simply delete this bogus template.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion until after I deleted that tag. I agree, the "rationale" appears to be groundless. Whoever feels there is a fair use issue, please discuss here. I'm certainly not seeing the problem based on the information put in that tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn! Sorry about my reversions, in which I inadvertantly restored the offending template. Looks like I got confused over which revision I went back to the first time. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hah, it's not often that I'd be removing a deletion notice, if my name had something to do with the fact you reverted. It's pretty clear that this image should not be deleted- people can argue about specific uses, but the file should be kept for use on the main article. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's try again

Well, let's try again to see exactly why so many people seem to feel that this image is justifiable fair use on intelligent design. I'll start the ball rolling with a summary. The image was added to the article after it attained FA status, and has been discussed on and off ever since. More editors oppose its inclusion than support it, meaning there is no consensus to keep it, and yet the supporters of its use in the article have diligently edit-warred to keep it on the article against consensus. When the matter is raised at Talk:Intelligent design the response is that people are sick of discussing it; I can see their point. The outcome of the recent deletion discussion was that it was kept with no endorsement of any particular fair use being legitimate. So, any other comments? --John (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The proper forum for discussion of what images should be used on Intelligent design is Talk:Intelligent design, not here.
2. Given that (as you have noted) this issue has been repeatedly, and recently, raised on that page, raising it again here would appear to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
3. I dispute your unsubstantiated assertion that "More editors oppose its inclusion than support it".
4. I would further point out that your three attempts to place illegitimate templates on this image in order to get it deleted, combined with an XfD nomination that contained no legitimate rationale for deletion, reduces both your credibility, and others toleration for still further argument, on this subject.

You have tried, at considerable (and many would consider disruptive) length, to have this image removed (either from Intelligent design or altogether), without success. I would suggest that you let the matter rest. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn is right that this is not the correct venue. If you want an edit made to intelligent design, discuss it on talk:Intelligent design. J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When the issue is raised at talk:Intelligent design, all we get is "This has been discussed before. Go read our 400 page long talk history.". I've indeed read it, and have found nothing addressing the concerns of those questioning the image use. --Damiens.rf 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have indeed read it, as you claim, then raise the issue there again, and challenge others to show you where in the talk page history these concerns have been addressed. This talk page isn't the place for such a discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the only relevant issue is whether the fair use rationale given on this image is appropriate and valid for this image's use in intelligent design. As far as I can tell, it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I decline to let the matter rest as it is an abuse of another human being's intellectual property, in contradiction of our own policies and of the consensus reached in the several discussions already held at Talk:Intelligent design. Many editors are sick of discussing it there as whatever the outcome of the discussion there is a core of people who will edit-war to restore the image. I suppose it then becomes a user conduct issue... I will think about it with a view to raising it yet again at the article talk. --John (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. "I decline to let the matter rest..." -- congratulations, you thereby meet Churchill's definition of a fanatic: "one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
2. "...as it is an abuse of another human being's intellectual property," Are you a lawyer with expertise in intellectual property, and particularly issues dealing with fair use? If not, then this is just so much unsubstantiated bloviating.
3. "...in contradiction of our own policies..." As has been pointed out to you, these policies contain subjective criteria, whose interpretation is a matter of consensus.
4. "...in contradiction ... of the consensus reached in the several discussions already held at Talk:Intelligent design." As you have presented no evidence that such a consensus exists, this appears to be simply wishful thinking on your part.
5. "Many editors are sick of discussing it there as whatever the outcome of the discussion there is a core of people who will edit-war to restore the image." My memory of this is simply the reverse: anti-NFC activists, frustrated at not being able to win a consensus on talk, edit-warring in furtherance of their desired outcome, but being stymied by a larger number of editors willing to revert.
6. "I will think about it with a view to raising it yet again at the article talk." This will almost certainly be viewed as disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, given how frequently, and how recently, this issue has been already raised.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 23:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)