Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 February 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20

[edit]
Image:The_Homosexual_transsexual.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hfarmer (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a synthesis of several copyrighted photos. Per WP:NOR, we have no way to determine if the people in the image are homosexual or even transsexual. Since no person has ever publicly identified as a "homosexual transsexual," the people incorporated into the montage would probably object to inclusion individually. Image is only used on a talk page, but even then raises issues about the subjective nature of photos used in the image. Uploading editor wishes to legitimize the term with an image, but it is unclear what would be accomplished with comparative montages in terms of elucidating the article. Appears to be a clear case of physiognomy, the pseudoscience of inferring behavior based on facial characteristics. Jokestress (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These images have served their purpose which was to get people in a discussion over illustrating an article to think about the possibilities morphing opens up. Like the possibility of using a morphed composite of many images to illustrate an article about a category of people. Such an image would represent an average member of the category w/o any bias. I would argue that these images should be kept so as to provide context to the discussion in which they were used. The most important arguement to refute is on the copyright of such photomorphs. See "Complete Copyright: An Everyday Guide For Librarians By Carrie Russell" (you'll have to search the book for "copyright photo morphing law"). Which basically says that opinion is split and cites one court case in which morphed images were ruled to not be a violation of copyrights. As for inferring behavior from looking at a picture and talk of pseudo science... I did not do that. All of those images were taken from various websites where the biographies of the people used were written, as well as a couple images of people I know personally. Jokestress would have to be psychic to know who's image was used, or how they would react. The last thing I want to refute is the idea that this is original research. Basically if creating this picture is original research then so would be going out and taking a picture of someone, finding out of they self identify, finding out if someone else would ID them as such etc. etc. It's a classic slippery slope. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both photos are textbook examples of WP:SYN. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hey what is this? We get to throw up arguments until one sticks? If this was so clear why was it not in your first comment? --Hfarmer (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the first sentence of my first comment, taking time to note the word "synthesis." I do not plan on getting into a back and forth with you on this. Policy is quite clear, and WP:NOR has been explained many, many times to you. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an opinion on the utility of this photo. However, these two have been bickering talking for a long time now about these "prototype" images. As I understand the issues, Jokestress, a prominent TS activist who passionately believes that the ideas represented in this cluster of articles is hurtful to all transsexual people, is strongly opposed to any including any photo. Hfarmer wants a photo of a person who represents the characteristics that are ascribed to this category of people, even if the individual people involved might not self-identify with this particular label. Personally, I just want any admin who is reading this to go to Talk:Homosexual transsexual (don't forget the archive) and to look over the entire long discussion before making a decision. I think it will help you form your own opinions about the applicability of the various policies and issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:XW14.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hfarmer (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a synthesis of several copyrighted photos. Per WP:NOR, we have no way to determine if the people in the image are "autogynephilic" or even transsexual. Since few people ever publicly identified as an "autogynephilic transsexual," the people incorporated into the montage would probably object to inclusion individually. Image is only used on a talk page, but even then raises issues about the subjective nature of photos used in the image. Uploading editor wishes to legitimize the term with an image, but it is unclear what would be accomplished with comparative montages in terms of elucidating the article. Appears to be a clear case of physiognomy, the pseudoscience of inferring behavior based on facial characteristics. Jokestress (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what I argued about the image above. Specific to this picture this Image is neither original research, nor physiognomy, or defamatory, or in violation of copyright. Because the membership of the people in the source images was determined from their own biograpical webpages and the definition of the word applied to them. It cannot be defamatory because their is no real way to know who's image was used. Nor is it in violation of copyright law because I have been able to hunt down an actual legal precident where the use of images to create a composite is considered a fair use of the source Images. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures corp. (137 F, 3d 109 (2d Cir 1998) These images should be kept for the context of the article and this legal decision should be used in the fomulation of official WP policy on the use of composited images such as these. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both photos are textbook examples of WP:SYN. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.