File talk:Einstein and Locker-Lampson.jpeg

Rationales for using the photo
The image is not replaceable by text alone for a number of reasons: 1) It is important to convey the clandestine nature and physical setting of Locker-Lampson and the bodyguards trying to hide Einstein in England; 2) There is no other image of Locker-Lampson in Wikipedia; 3) Locker-Lampson, an MP, was one of the few, if not the only person in England to offer Einstein refuge from Hitler and his supporters, and this image helps convey that, showing him at a secret cottage in the Norfolk countryside. According to the cited source in the article, Locker-Lampson warned the press, "If any unauthorized person comes near they will get a charge of buckshot"; 4) The King of Belgium and Locker-Lampson and possibly Winston Churchill had worked to keep Einstein safe during his very brief visit to England, which makes the image of historical significance; 5) The work that Einstein is shown doing in a hut, isolated in Norfolk, was to become the "cornerstone of science today," according to the BBC.; 6) The photo also conveys the complete opposite reception he received in America as opposed to having to hide under armed bodyguards in England. The photo is therefore best kept with the commentary in the article.--Light show (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to these in order listed.
 * If this is the case, then should be sourced critical commentary discussing this in the article which specifically refers this particular photo. If reliable sources specifically discussed this photo and such content/sources were added to the article, there would be a much stronger justification for non-free use per WP:NFCC. As currently written, there's nothing in the article which requires that the reader actually see this particular photo.
 * Irrelevant to this particular non-free use because the photo is not being used as the primary means of identification in Oliver Locker-Lampson. If you want to use the photo there per item 10 of WP:NFCI, then you will need to provide the appropriate rationale for doing so per WP:NFCCE.
 * Image does no such thing. It shows Locker-Lampson sitting next to Einstein holding a shot gun, but any interpretation you apply to the photo needs to come from reliable sources about the photo itself, not for syntnesizing information from multiple sources into your interpretation.
 * None of this requires that the reader see this particular photo to be understood. Again, if this is the case, then this sourced information should be added to the article and it should directly make reference to this partiuclar photo.
 * Same as 4 above
 * Same as 3 above
 * The best chance for keeping this file is, in my opinion, to use it as the primary means of identification in the stand-alone article about Locker Lampson. Non-free images of decesased individuals are generally allowed when they are used in such a way. Non-free use in the Einstein article, however, is going to require a much stronger justification that what you've written above because none of that requires that this particular non-free image be seen to be understood. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I found over 200 newspaper articles about the circumstances surrounding this and similar photos at the hut. Note that this is a press photo, which Locker-Lampson allowed to be taken after he invited a reporter to the site. There is no information about the name of the press photographer, time of day, or the photographer's description of this or any of the many photos they probably took at that place. Which is the case with 50 million other press photos. Some staff photographer usually accompanies a reporter and the photo simply describes visually what the article states.


 * The commentary in this article which the photo illustrates is brief, since there's no benefit to explaining how or why this and other photos were shot. That would be trivia even if we knew. In fact of the thousands of non-free images in WP, I can't remember ever seeing any that describes such minutia about a particular photo. But if you want me to expand the section describing the circumstances illustrated by the photo, I can. There are a lot more details surrounding the hideout and how this and the other photos came about. I'm just afraid of adding trivia. --Light show (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Einstein at Locker-Lampson's guarded hideout in England

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this non-free photo be restored and used to support the related commentary? See discussion above. Light show (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support inclusion of the photograph for reasons stated above. It adds visual substance to the commentary about the circumstances for the photo. Since the photo was deleted, it can be seen here.Light show (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the wrong venue for this discussion - it has been deleted by an Administrator and there are other options (WP:DRV) for restoring it other than an RfC. Keira  1996  05:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong Venue DRV.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment: Since this is about a file which has been deleted, I think it would be best for you to discuss this with the administrator who deleted the file or start a discussion at WP:DRV per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, since you tagged it for deletion and it was speedy deleted, I feel that requesting it be restored should be done by you. The editor who deleted it gave no rationale except citing violation of nfcc #1, implying they had nothing to say and aren't too interested in discussing it. But as suggested by you, I will add more details to the commentary about the photo, some of which can be cited from the Science Museum, UK. Although I still think the existing commentary is plenty.--Light show (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFCCE, it is the responsibility of the person wanting to use a non-free image to justify its use. So, if you feel non-free use is now justified, then discuss it with the administrator who deleted the file and explain why. FWIW, the administrator who deleted the file is quite experienced with non-free content, and does lots of work dealing with file related stuff. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have deleted it if he felt that NFCC#1 was not an issue. You can provide him with the new info you've found and ask him to reconsider. Assuming in advance that he is not interested in discussing things is not really assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but totally disagree that the burden should be shifted to me. The image has been in the article with the commentary about it for four years. There were no prior attacks against its usability. You were the only person to ever tag it, and you engaged in a lengthy discussion about how and when it could be used. The admin who speedy deleted it obviously did so based on your tag and your rationale.
 * You suggested details about this exact photo would make it acceptable, which I just added. If you feel that the problem has been fixed, it makes sense to not force another editor jump through hearsay hoops to get it restored, and it would be a token of good faith for you to make the effort. I'll support you 100%. --Light show (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's best to call questioning the non-free use of a file an "attack" since it kind of implies WP:RIPPED. Moreover, WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED is not a valid justifcation for non-free use. There are 500,000 plus non-free files and sometimes it takes a while for someone to notice a particular one. I am not sure if the file should be used, which is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. I suggested that adding more specific details about the photo would make a stronger case for non-free use, but that does necessarily not mean the file should be used. The additional content you added just basically describes what is seen in the photo, but is not really any sourced critical commentary of the photo itself. Is this a famous photo that was widely discussed in reliable sources at the time? If so, then adding some of that commentary with supporting sources to the article would also help strengthen your claim for non-free use. So, you are the one who needs to explain why the actual photo needs to be seen by the reader and how seeing it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the article content to a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding as opposed to simply adding a citation to a reliable source instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, requiring proof of, how seeing it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the article content to a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding, sets a subjective standard that is impossible to meet. And that rarely are any of the 500,000 non-free photos "famous" and "widely discussed in reliable sources at the time." --Light show (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue. This is about restoring a deleted file, it should be discussed with the deleting admin or at WP:DRV. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue. The issue is how copyright law applies to a particular image. That is not something that can be decided by consensus. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The venue seems OK. This RfC, like most, is not about consensus, but to get outside input about the article's content. An editor tagged the image which was then speedy deleted; with a rationale which claims that someone adding it, needs to explain why the actual photo needs to be seen by the reader and how seeing it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the article content to a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * In other words, it is a totally subjective opinion by an editor which got it deleted. While you've been an editor for nearly 11 years, the tagging editor has been here only 3 1/2. So if you have an opinion, feel free to give it. Do you as an experienced editor agree with that requirement, or that a fair use image also needs to be, a famous photo that was widely discussed in reliable sources at the time? This is only a "Request for Comments" about subjective content issues. In any case, the deleting admin has already been made aware of this RfC which implies a deletion review. --Light show (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion that I have only been editing for 3.5 years. Once again, that seems as if you're trying to argue WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:RIPPED. WP:NFCC states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding; that wording was determined through consensus and is not something I just made up on my own., the administrator who deleted the files, has been an editor since 2007 and an administrator since 2010. As I posted above, he does a lot of work with image files, particularly non-free files, and closes lots of FFD discussions so he has lots of experience dealing with these types of things. I don't believe he would've deleted the file if he felt its non-free use was justified or that further discussion was needed. So, you should discuss this with him if you feel he made an error or require further clarification. Moreover, as three other editors have now also pointed out, the best place to ask for a deletion review is at WP:DRV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.