File talk:Darwin on Trial.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 to date are Of Pandas and People, Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box. The rationale is beyond adequate. ... Kenosis 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is still ongoing, and it's not limited to what oyu call the "article editors" (everybody that is not blocked is an article editor). Please read WP:OWN. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated my invitation to join in and affect the consensus at the article, though my invitation wasn't necessary, as Abu badali should already well know. ... Kenosis 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please read WP:OWN"...please see WP:AGF and get off of your self-erected pedestal.

And subjective is an understatement: I tire of this self-righteous wiki-lawyering 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• 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's used in the article or not, it isn't ok to remove the fair use rationale. That action strikes me as a clear violation of fair use policy. Guettarda 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, Guettarda. I've been following and participating in image policy debates for some time, and if a rationale does not comply with WP:NFCC, it would seem illogical to leave it there. I recently removed a non-free image of Saddam from the article about 2006. As it happened, the image was subsequently deleted, but at the time, it had a Fair Use rationale saying that it showed how easily Saddam sat on his throne! What I see happening here seems perfectly in keeping with image policy as interpreted by people like Jimbo or Mindspillage, whenever they weigh in on such issues. ElinorD (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IfD close

1. You can't close a deletion debate as anything other than a "keep" or "delete"...the debate was clearly a keep
2. On what basis does someone with no obvious legal training make the decision to override consensus on this issue? Guettarda 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:John Cleese.jpg for a precedent for closing the debate with "keep" for one article and "delete" for another. ElinorD (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The result indeed was an overwhelming consensus to "keep", contrary to the statement of the closing admin. Please note the following:

First please re-read WP:DGFA

An IfD was brought by User:Videmus Omnia here. The terms of the IfD were as follows:

I am actually proposing that this image be removed from its usages on Philip E. Johnson and Intelligent design, although usage on the article about the book should be OK. The image should be removed from those articles per WP:NFCC#8 in that omission of the image from those articles would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. I know this isn't the ideal forum for this, but the 'fair use disputed' tags keep getting deleted and there is no better forum to which to take this. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| ^Talk ]] 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some 16 users expressed their preferred outcome as explicit "keep". Five users explicitly expressed a preference to "delete" or "remove" from articles other than the article on Darwin on Trial. Those users were:User:Abu badali, User:Quadell, User:Angr, User:Anrie, and User:ElinorD. Along with the nominator, User:Videmus Omnia, that makes six users who expressed an explicit preference to remove from Intelligent design and Phillip E. Johnson. Note carefully that these six users who voted or explicitly expressed their preference to remove this image from the two additional articles are all regulars around those parts of the wiki where the focus is upon deletion of images. Note also that the explicit preferences to keep the images in the additional two articles, intelligent design and Michael Behe, were expressed not only by regular participants in the local consensus process in the intelligent design project, but also of various other participants, including the Director of the featured articles project. In this instance, not only did Nv8200P overrule a lack of consensus to delete from these two articles per WP:DGFA, but also overruled a clear consensus to keep the image in these two articles. ... Kenosis 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]