File talk:Raj Thackeray as Hitler.jpg

Fails NFCC #8

Sarvagnya has nominated this image for deletion with reason There's nothing the image conveys that cannot be expressed in words. The image does nothing to increase the readers' understanding of the subject and is being used, like the rest of the article, purely for sensationalism.. I would like to contest this with below arguments -

1. The image conveys how Raj Thackeray is seen in today's world as a leader who spreads hatred in similar fashion as Hitler had promoted anti-semetic ideology in during Nazi Germany. The image is a complete must here as no words can really describe the similarities between the two leaders and the modus-operandi used in spreading the ideology.
2. Image increases the reader's understanding of who is seen as responsible for current attacks in Maharashtra. The image has an encyclopedic value as its shows how the media and press portrays the current cultural conflict in Maharashtra. Moreover, the article where this image is used has text On February 11, in Pune, a group of about 15 MNS activists burnt 150 copies of The Week, a weekly magazine in English, in reaction to its cover story on Raj's controversial utterances, portraying him as Mumbai's Hitler. which shows how sensitive was this issue of The Week to the subject. Such single image explains a reader about the article in many more ways than can be expressed in 10 or 100 sentences.
3. Whether this image is sensational or not depends upon the viewer's opinion. An MNS supporter may this image as sensational and totally biased or even personal attack or abuse. But a north Indian may see this image perfectly suitable to what's going on currently in Maharashtra. My arguments of why this is not sensational image -- because it shows the similarity not only between the leaders but the events, the ideology and way of implementing the ideologies. Let me remind here, Raj Thackeray (who is shown in the photo here) has stated in past that Hitler has been his hero.

--GPPande talk! 12:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GPPande. In fact, this image is quite similar to Image:Dscoverche-gandhi.jpg. Therefore I am removing the tag. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont find the rationale for deletion convincing for the reasons detailed by gppande. This image certainly doesnt fail any wp policy and only obscurantism can be a reason for deleting this. Docku:“what up?” 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The image conveys how Raj Thackeray is seen in today's world as a leader who spreads hatred in similar fashion as Hitler had promoted anti-semetic ideology in during Nazi Germany." -- Complete and utter nonsense. Speak for yourself. Don't speak for everybody. Maybe you find it convenient to see him that way, but "today's world" doesnt see Thackeray as a Hitler. Not by a long shot! Even RT's worst critics including political opponents like Rane, Pawar and others have made it clear that they sympathise with RT's views but disagree with his "means". Even editors like Nikhil Wagle have conceded as much. Now if you will only show me one respectable opinion from anywhere or anyone which says that they "sympathise with Hitler's 'ideology' but disagree with his 'means'"!!!
• "Image increases the reader's understanding of who is seen as responsible for current attacks in Maharashtra." -- The article - all 100kb of it leaves nothing to imagination and lays out every charge and opinion against Raj Thackeray in mind-numbing detail. The image does not convey anything that the article does not and removing it will in no way affect the reader's understanding of the topic.
• "My arguments of why this is not sensational image -- because it shows the similarity not only between the leaders but the events, the ideology and way of implementing the ideologies." -- Like I said above, find me one respectable opinion from anywhere which says that Hitler's "ideology" was noble but his "means" were not and then spout this nonsense. RT does not become Hitler just because you think so. Sarvagnya 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are assuming that the image was created by the wikipedia editors. Are you? atleast that is how your argument sounds. it is flawed. sorry. Docku:“what up?” 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. You're only wrong. And its probably not your fault. The image would be a speedy delete candidate if you'd created it yourself. However, it was created by an entity which does not follow the same NPOV and speedy-del criteria as wikipedia and you're claiming fair use. Wikipedia's fair use criteria, however are quite clear cut in stating that to claim fair use .. the image would have to be absolutely indispensible. There's nothing remotely indispensible about this image. Sarvagnya 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on. stop patronising. Even RT's worst critics including political opponents like Rane, Pawar and others have made it clear that they sympathise with RT's views but disagree with his "means". What kind of rationale is that? Docku:“what up?” 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

* Sarvagnya says - find me one respectable opinion from anywhere which says that Hitler's "ideology" was noble but his "means" were not

Response: Read my arguments again - never did I say Hitler's ideology was noble so no need for me to cite a source.

* Sarvagnya says - Maybe you find it convenient to see him that way, but "today's world" doesnt see Thackeray as a Hitler. Not by a long shot!

Response: Well my friend, there is no need to argue here. He is not only seen but also shown by media as Hitler in the photo for which we are debating. :-))

* Sarvagnya says - The image does not convey anything that the article does not and removing it will in no way affect the reader's understanding of the topic.

Response: That's exactly the text you put and what has started this discussion. You need to provide some logical argument here to support it - not just reiterate it. Anything new here? hmm?

* Sarvagnya says - Even RT's worst critics including political opponents like Rane, Pawar and others have made it clear that they sympathise with RT's views

Response: DISCLAIMER: This would be out of scope discussion on Wikipedia. Might be well suited on some discussion forum or a blog. But this sentence is too much flawed and I cannot prevent myself from responding.

See, your "RT"'s worst opponents are not Rane and Pawar. Infact, Pawar, RR Patil, Deshmukh are all strong covert supporters of "RT" to showcase him as Marathi hero (to attract Marathi vote-bank) but at the same time allowing him to do all violent incidents so that the peace-loving thinking class rejects him (causing a vote split). This is the exact reason why Congress NCP says they sympathies with Raj for the cause and not the means. They are providing "RT" with all sorts of political mileage so that Shiv Sena and BJP fail in Maharashtra with split voting by Marathi Manoos between Sena-BJP and MNS. Now make a guess who will benefit from this vote split - Did you say NCP and Congress? You got it!!! Pawar, Deshmukh Rane and Patil belong to this NCP-Congress camp. So you now understand the equation in Maharashtra. Then who is real opposition to "RT"? Actually nobody except rule of law - Not even Bihari leaders like Lalu Nitish and Paswan. - Bihari leaders shout against "RT" to attract their own state vote-bank (those whose relatives work/live in Maharashtra). This way - it's a win-win situation for both MH and Bihari leaders. Only loser is common man and "law and order".

- Now - this last comment of mine might be too much for you to digest - so please do not get angry. I would revert it if you object with no questions asked. We will keep the discussion about WP only. --GPPande talk! 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I should start by saying that Sarvagnya invited me, as someone who follows fair use issues, to weigh in here. As it happens, I disagree with him in this case.

First off, while the wording of our fair use criteria is argued over and altered from time to time, it does not and has never required that a non-free image be "absolutely indispensable" in order to appear. The relevant test is and has been whether the image contributes "significantly" to readers' understanding.

In this case, I believe it does--and the strongest piece of evidence in support of that is the reaction it caused: the burning of 150 copies of the magazine by followers of Raj Thackeray. It is hard to imagine this response would have occurred if the magazine had only compared Thackeray with Hitler in its interior text, and not made the crude visual conflation seen on its cover. By the same token, readers of this article are less likely to understand the emotions the cover aroused without being able to see it.

I should point out that, coming to this matter from the outside, the image does not strike me primarily in the way that it does either of the main participants in the debate so far: It seems to me, first and foremost, neither a typical example of how Thackeray "is seen in today's world" nor as something that is "purely sensationalis[tic]" in this context (the context of a Wikipedia article). Rather, viewing the image helps me understand how the debate over Thackeray has become sensationalized. In other words, Sarvagnya, for those readers who have not been intimately familiar with the situation, viewing this crudely conceived image may actually help them better appreciate your position.DocKino (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked as an NFCC expert as to whether this image currently qualifies. In my opnion and in concordance with our precedents of using magazine covers, this does not satisfy NFCC 8. If you want to use this, you have to create a visual requirement in the article such that this magazine cover (and only this magazine cover) can be used to illustrate the point being made. In other words, you have to cite reliable sources that discuss this specific cover and what sort of influence it had other publications or on popular opinion, etc. I hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article appears to provide precisely the sort of sourced discussion that calls for the inclusion of the cover--that is, the discussion of the burning incident it sparked. So, the NFCC 8 requirement seems to be clearly met.

However, when I clicked on the link in the citation, it indicated that the requested page was unavailable. There is also a question as to where that link was leading to when it worked. It is less crucial to have a citation of the original article than it is to cite a news report on the burning incident and its connection to the "Hitler" cover. To justify the image's inclusion in the article, we need to be able to verify that the burning incident took place--or, as Howcheng indicates, that the cover in some other way had an impact on public discourse.DocKino (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if it provides any impetus to the current topic, but, apparently, Raj Thackerey likes Hitler. Docku:“what up?” 04:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why the link stopped working...but here is an even better link

"Latest issue of The Week newsmagazine, with the cover story titled "Mumbai's Hitler" and a photo montage on the cover depicting Thackeray as the dictator, has angered MNS activists in Pune and Mumbai" --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 10:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let us reassess the whole thing. The guy likes Hitler. He attacked his own innocent country men for whatever distorted purpose which he deemed appropriate. The week, one of the reputable magazines picks it up and portrays him as Mumbai's Hitler on the front page. His supporters go on rampage in Mumbai destroying copies of the magazine.

I would like to point out here that that this image is not used in his Biography, which would surely have been inappropriate.

Whether some politicians sympathise with him is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I guess someone should go ahead and remove the deletion tag. Docku:“what up?” 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The link to a respectable news source describing the incident and its connection with the magazine cover that has been provided by KnowledgeHegemony (and which I see has been added to the article) addresses the NFCC #8 concern. The image now appears to be in compliance with our fair use policy.DocKino (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So I am removing the tag. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he likes Hitler [1] Vat96 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)