Talk:FAI armoured car

Soviet/Nazi photo as "illustration" of an armoured car
The latest photo addition is nice, but that may be a BA-20 rather than an FAI. The turret is the sloped type found on BA-20s. Maybe some FAIs had that turret? I will check. DMorpheus 13:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much the photo illustrates the subject of the article if at all. It shows a small fragment of the vehicle and its main feature are evil Soviets who in cooperation with evil Nazis have just partitioned Poland. First of all the article is too short to accomodate several images. Please expand it somewhat for that. Second, the image doesn't illustrate anything the article writes about. If the article would have been expanded to include the military operations where the vehicle was used, the image could illustrate that it was used in Polish September Campaign. However, espanding the article takes time and effort. Much easier is to get the message through by pasting the image and see what happends. It would have been OK if the article was long enough already but this way it turns the article into a gallery. Besides, but this is a narrow point, the image is a fairuse image. It can only be used under narrow condtions and should closely illustrate the subject of the article, that is the main subject of the article and the main subject of the image has to be the same. The subject of the article is an armored car. The subject of the image is Soviet-German cooperation. However, the image is politically convenient and therefore is being pushed from one article into another. Why not write something for an article instead? --Irpen 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just removed the image because it is copyrighted and can not be considered as fair use for this article. Besides, it does not represent FAI. Halibutt recently tried to illustrate with this image the BA-27 article.--Nixer 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the picture itself - note the hatch is on the left side. Also, here you have an exact blueprint of the armoured car (and its sloped turret).


 * No, that site shows just what I mentioned above - the FAI and FAI-M had vertically-sided turrets. The early BA-20 also had that turret, but later ones had a sloped turret as shown in the photo that everyone is arguing about. DMorpheus 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As to what Irpen wrote - guys, please stop this hysterical campaign. This picture is not meant to promote or discern any views. It is simply a picture of the car we have in wikipedia - why not to use it? If you feel the need to expand the article - do it. If you feel the need to cut the image out from the article - give some more serious reason than that. Halibutt 13:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, this image can not be used in this article because of the copyright issues. Please read the rules on fair use. There are PD images available as long as other copirighted images which illustrate the car much better. Why we should use the copyrighted one?--Nixer 13:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because we have it. Also, just for you I retagged the image to some of the blanket categories for USSR photos. Halibutt 13:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it copyrighted by Polish government?--Nixer 13:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt's retugging is fivolous. The copyright is claimed by the Polish gov maintained site. It may well be that the claim the Polish ministry of Foreign affairs makes on this pic is as competent as the statement it makes at the same site: "A thought for the anniversary. Polish soldiers were not invited to participate in the victory parades in London and Moscow in 1945" especially since we have a photo document showing otherwise. However, the competency of Polish officials at the Ministry or even a former prime-minister Belka who, yet in his official capacity, wrote a similar nonsense statement, is a separate issue.

In any case, I think you both are at the wrong by using the copyright issues to strike down the opposing party's image (Halibutt's attacking Nixer's BA-27 and Nixer's attacking Halibutt's FAI). Leave this to self-styled copyright enforcers at Wikipedia who already force us all to waste too much time to defend clearly acceptable images, including these ones.

My view is that this image doesn't belong here, at least yet, for entirely different reason. The article is about the vehicle and being as short as it is now, it hardly even describes the vehicle and its usage in campaigns is too far away from the current miniscule condition. The pic shows a small fragment of the vehicle in the background and mainly features evil Soviets and evil Nazis who have just partitioned Poland. If Halibutt cares about the article, he can expand it to include the usage of the vehicle in 1939 Soviet occupation. Then the image would be apropriate. However, as I said earleir, expanding the article takes time and effort. Much easier is to get the message through by pasting the image and see what happends. It would have been OK if the article was long enough already but this way it turns the article into a gallery.

Finally, this article doesn't seem so important to me to be worth a fight. If the image pleases Halibutt, I am fine with it although I think it has no use for the article in its current shape. If Nixer wants to keep the fight, he can write a short article RfC over this laughably small point. In any case, please don't use copyright issues to win the argument. Leave it to those who we have to fend off our images all the time. It's time consuming enough as it is. --Irpen 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Nixer, Pls don't revert war. You've been blocked for that too many times. Also spend your effort wisely, that is take a firm stand only when the issue is really important and just let it go on occasions like this.


 * Why can't we keep all the images? Fair use can be claimed if the pd-tags are disputed. But please note that a source shoud be given, no matter what tag what used.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am not talking here why not? I don't generally object. I am simply raising the issue of how ethical it is to use the copyright issues to strike down one image to give prominence to the other one, especially a politically loaded one. This has to be decided purely on the merit of the image's usability and not. Leave the copyright paranoia to self-appointed copyright police. They give us enough aggravation. Too bad that one of "us", editors, co-opts their arguments into the edit conflict, like others use "fact" and "dubious" for that. --Irpen 04:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)