File talk:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg

I believe all images should remain in the article. A valid argument can be made in terms of the images document events of some historical significance. Mr Cormier's freedom of speech and expression were violated by the terms of a court order which prohibited him from being on Sparks Street for the "purposes of speaking or shouting." This is significant event for Canadian legal history - if it can happen to one person it can happen to anyone.

Mr Cormier was an Independent candidate for Ottawa Centre in a federal election. Mr Cormier's political participation as a so-called "fringe" candidate has historical significance for Canadian political history. The Liberal government amended the electoral process so that all candidates had to pay a fee to run in elections, which effectively disallowed Canadians with modest means from running as candidates in federal elections.

Davejelly (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) — Davejelly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If this issue is so relevant to the article, how come it is not really discussed? Even if it was, what would this image really add to the article that text couldn't? J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an explanation of the historical significance should be in the article. Images can contribute to the esthetics and historical document, even if they do not express ideas the same way that words do.  Davejelly (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) — Davejelly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Excellent photo and deserving of both use and FUR. However the article could improve the way it uses it. That's a matter for copyediting the article though, not deleting the image. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe the fair use rationale is justified? I certainly don't think this generic rationale (which I don't support at all for historic images, but that's another issue...) applies to this image- the article is not about the event, and does not even specifically mention it. At the very least, a new rationale needs to be written. Has anyone here even read our non-free content criteria? J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * J You unilaterally removed these disputed images from the article the first time you saw them. You didn't just tag them for deletion which is the proper procedure. If anyone was interested enough to follow the discussion the last week, you eventually relented and they were restored for a few days undisputed. Obviously you've had a change of heart. It's becoming increasingly evident you are obsessed by them. Considering 95% of the article has been removed to history, thankfully this remains: He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for making speeches to crowds in Downtown Ottawa and charged with shouting, causing a disturbance. He was convicted and handed a one day suspended sentence with one condition of probation for one year "not to attend on The Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting". After that judgment, he continued to exercise what he saw as his democratic right to freedom of speech, he breached the probation and was sent to jail.[1][2][3][4] The images, showing only one time of many arrests, affirm and confirm an historic event not just the person in the article. Credit is given to the source and referenced: Second Police Warning for God's Emissary. Obviously the subject of the article did not choose the newspaper header. You are a smart young man so I will challenge you to disprove the image is historic. Read the letter of the probation, each word, and find anyone else in the Democratic nations placed under the same probation and you will have proved your point. If you cannot, then the images are historic. Very simple. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'proper procedure'? I'm sorry, it isn't the proper procedure to leave images blatantly against our non-free content criteria in articles. I may have assessed the images in relation to our policies wrongly, but I certainly did not follow the wrong procedure. Last week, there was minimal discussion. You asked if you could add them back in the article, I consented because you were being polite and I could see no massive harm in you doing so- basically, keeping them out of the article was a lot more trouble than it was worth. I did not believe that the images should be kept- I have had no change of heart. Furthermore, you accuse me of being obsessed with these images. Anyone who has even looked at my contributions would realise that is nonsense, and I am really starting to resent your baseless accusations and attacks- it is ironic that you edit almost exclusively regarding a single topic, yet you accuse me, an administrator who has been here years with tens of thousands of edits (imcluding a large number of vasried edits over the last few weeks, concerning music, image copyright, watchlist changes, bots, formatting and goodness knows what else) of being obsessed with a single topic. In regards to your next point, we do not need images to "affirm and confirm" historic events- that's what we have references for. An image is needed only if it adds considerably to the readers' understanding of said event in a way that text/a free image never could- this doesn't. Your final argument is ridiculous- this person was placed under a probation that no one else was, therefore it is completely justified to use a random image of him being arrested? I am not saying the probation he was placed under does not have significant implications (I think, politically, I would share a lot of views with the subject and what happened does actually interest me significantly) but I just honestly don't see what that has to do with this image. I think you are making this discussion a lot more complex than it should be. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words, and I believe the removal of the image is detrimental to the information the entry is attempting to convey. Please leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morfane (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC) — Morfane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I feel this image should be kept as there is very little chance of replaceability and the image does contribute to the article. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)