Talk:Lolicon/Archive 5

Summary

 * It took me quite a while to work out what was going on on this talk page, what with all the indenting and all... after I had what I thought was a fair idea of what is going on, I put together this summary box for the convenience of others. I've tried to keep it factual-only, so hopefully no-one will hate me too much for it! Mike1024 (t/c) 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say it is fairly good but I would mention linkimage and have an example of it so people know what it is. Tables scare me or I would add it myself. kotepho 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Added. Mike1024 (t/c) 10:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work. -kotra 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does the summary say it is for the benefit of those "arriving from RFC"? I checked there, but I don't see anything about this article at WP:RFC.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, what I meant to say was Current surveys, which is linked from wp:rfc.Mike1024 (t/c) 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I made a change to the summary. I removed "deemed to be legal" and replaced with "Two people said 'keep' and two said 'delete', so it was kept". If you follow the link given about the legal status, that was the actual result.  "Deemed to be legal" makes it sound like some court case was tried about this image, or that some Foundation lawyer stepped in and said definitely that it is legal.  As far as I know neither has happened. Johntex\talk 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true that I hadn't looked at that page, just copied the description from a page linking to it. I'm not sure how we should go about describing the results of that discussion; based on the section of law cited, I would guess the image is legal. And we don't work out what is legal by majority vote, we work it out by examining actual laws... one would think... anyway, I might let people go to that page and decide for themselves if that's OK... Mike1024 (t/c) 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I've added some links to template:linkimage and discussion thereof, which would appear to be relevant. Mike1024 (t/c) 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let discussion commence
I've been asked elsewhere to clarify the position regarding "both images": When there are two (or more) images on the page, under most circumstances they are both violations of fair use equally, but removing either one or the other will remove that fair use violation. If there are four pictures of Ford cars than all of them will probably be violations but that doesn't mean that they all have to be removed, just all but one. This doesn't mean that there may not be other problems, of course, per above. It also does not mean that there are no situations where it is possible to have more than one fair use image. The gist is the minimum possible number of fair use images to illustrate the article should be used. This whole thing could go away if we could get some GFDL images, perhaps from the much-reviled image swapping boards? brenneman {L} 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You already know why I'm contesting this. This is a censorship tool with this type of interpretation.  In any article, you can very well add pictures onto to an article which you despise, invoke the fair use clause, and remove the image which you think is more inappropiate.  That's the gist of the challenge.  This is not acceptable, which is why I want the picture reverted to the FIRST picture.  --Jqiz 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a vaild concern.
 * I'd note that I just switched the image back to the less explicit one only because it's pretty clear that it was being done by an abusive sock. If a user with more than two edits puts the other image back, I'm not going to change it, and I haven't done so up to know.
 * The argument you present is not about fair use per se as that's how "offensive" images are removed in almost every instance: They stay until someone provides a "better" one.  As I've noted before, if someone provided a free-license image we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because we always choose fair use images as a lst resort.
 * I can concede that copyright issues sharpen dicussions, as the small revert-war brewing over which image goes at the top shows. I can also concede that I'd like to see the more explicit image removed, but for editorial reasons not censorship ones.
 * brenneman {L} 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My last edit was with the ip of 24.184.24.134, before I've created this account. There are no consensus on which image should be used.  I will be adding back the status quota image when I am able to again.  --Jqiz 05:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, above you say that you believe "the teddy-bear-with-wet-dildo image is more representative of the genre". This seems to me like a good reason to include it in the article - especially because the other image *isn't* terribly representative of the genre, from what I've seen. So what are your editorial reasons? I think we're unlikely to find a non-fair-use image in this instance, so that's fairly irrelevant, if a pity. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to have a real revert-war here, but I do object to the apparent "add an image, use it as an excuse to remove a more useful image which some consider offensive" behaviour here. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll note again the only time I've swapped the images at the top was to reverse someone who had two edits.
 * From trawling the image boards over the last few days trying to find something redeeming which would indicate they should be included there is a fair amount of fan-made art available, but nothing as good a quality as either of the existing images, so there would be compronise.
 * My editorial reasons are that it's simply too confronting and shocking an image, and that it goes further than necessary to illustrate the genre. Between the two, yes, it's more representative, but I think that we could do better.
 * brenneman {L} 14:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Compromising quality to get rid of the iffy-fair-use images seems reasonable to me, although I'm not going to go trawl the message boards myself.. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I support the "Kotori-Kan Vol. 2" image because I think it is just as representative of the genre as the teddy-bear image, and much less controversial. I think we should also link to 2-5 good image boards, prefereably once that have discussion as well as images on the boards. Johntex\talk 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still very iffy about the image warring. But people seem to be sockpuppetting, and it's so not worth the bother, so I'll happily agree to the less controversial being left in place. However, if there's any possibility of a fair use image which is useful for the illustration purpose, I really think that'd be far better in the article. A couple of imageboards sounds fine. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm more than "iffy" about the image warring, I'm cross. I'm placing a check-user request as AN/I.  If whomever it is can't make their aguments by dint of reason, sock-wars shouldn't just be let slide.  Again, I'm happy with either one or the other image being in place while we work it out. -  brenneman  {L} 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Working and playing well
I'd like to remind Jgiz that the more recent picture is being used as a compromise which was supposed to resolve the complaints about the old picture. And it would have, if someone didn't have the genius idea of putting the old picture back lower down in the article. Ashibaka tock 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The compromise was to lower the other picture, not remove the picture entirely. As I said, until there is a clear consensus then status quota image should stay.  But, if such consensus were to be reached, I will not revert back the picture.  Also, on your second part: I'm interpreting it as an attack on another user.  --Jqiz 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I don't even remember who that guy was. Ashibaka tock 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * People who reads your comment do. It was Hipocrite.  You should not be attacking the actions of another member with sarcastic remarks. Lets try to abide by WP:CIVIL--Jqiz 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading back through all the old comments above (which I wasn't involved with), it does seem that there was no real agreement on the other picture being *removed*, just a compromise on lowering the other picture. As such, sarcastic edit summaries like "appeal to tradition, not one of my favorite logical fallacies" are unhelpful and seemingly designed merely to provoke. --Fuzzie (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd really prefer not to have to protect the page in "the wrong version" so if we could have more talk, less reverting that would be good? brenneman  {L} 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The current version is the working status-quo version, seeing as the "remove the image" side has breeched the agreement to keep both images, with the more "offensive" one at the bottom. It would go a long way to show that they were operating in good faith if they didn't argue facetious copyright claims to try to get one of the images removed, but if they intend to argue such, the removed image will certainly be the less "offensive" one, as it is clearly less informative. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's conflating two issues. If we had two GFDL images, it would be a different argument.  But right now we don't, so people can't override copyright with "consensus." -  brenneman  {L} 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am accusing some of the people who have hopped on the copyright bandwaggon as a reason to delete the image they don't like of acting in bad faith. If they were truely concerned with copyright, (a spurrious concern, but a seperate issue), they would not care which image remained. However, they do. This is transparently bad faith. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "informative"? If we want to inform readers that Lolicon images can depict naked children in extreme sexual situations it'd be better and easier just to say so. -Will Beback 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The less provocotive image, coupled with the text, coupled with the links to off-site image repositories, does plenty to inform the reader and reflects better on Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been gone over numerous times, and the conclusion was there was no consensus to remove or link the images. We can go over it, AGAIN, if you must, but I will have to insist that if my time is wasted AGAIN going over it, those who vote to remove the edit be forced to make 5 helpful contributions to the encyclopedia that are not reverted for every person that is forced to AGAIN come to this talk page and AGAIN reach an obvious no-consensus default decision to keep the images as images on the page. Given that giving an inch on moving one of the two images down the page has resulted in the taking of a mile, if we are forced to go over this decision AGAIN, I will have to reneg on the prior agreement to move the "more offensive" image down the page and will swap image locations. Have I said this before? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit wasting our time with such absurd statements. I've already replied to you the first time you made that ludicrous statement.  You can spend your own time to look through the page history to find it.  You don't own Wikipedia, or this page, and you have no right to insist on any such thing. Johntex\talk 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review WP:CIVIL. I did not think that the two image solution with the less "offensive" image at the top was best, and obviously, neither did you. We came to an agreement to accept that solution, which your side promptly started to hack away at - first via blind image removal without comment, and now with this spurrious copyright nonsense. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take your own advice and stop doling it out to others.  You would do well to read WP:CIVIL.  Nothing in WP:CIVIL supports your "insistence" on getting things your way, and nothing there gives you the right to "insist" on any type of additional contributions from your fellow editors.  Johntex\talk 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My reverts to this article over the past 50 edits? Zero. You? 5. "My way" is getting rid of the picture of the reclining blond and leaving only the more represenative, more informative picture at the top of the article, but I haven't been arguing for "my way or the highway (you have)." I have been arguing for the compromise that was reached (and then insulted repeatedly by amature lawyers of dubious skill) over months of repetitive "I hope they don't show up this time!" strawpolls. I compromised back in the day to a mutually agreeable solution of moving the "offensive" picture down. This was taken as my preferred positon (as demonstrated) by individuals such as yourself, who have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise and a willingness to game the system to make the opposing side look weaker for compromising in the past. The status-quo is the one picture, at the top. Let's negotate. How about we show both pictures, with the one you consider "offensive" at the bottom, eh? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no war to fight here (...other than the revert war). I do not see how you making this polemic or suggesting you will 'reneg' on agreements is helping. kotepho 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the massive revert warring, which I did not take part in, was helping either. I don't see how going back to a decision which has been gone back to 6 time in the history of this article is helping. I certainlty don't see how a not-lawyer with no history of being a defender of copyrights on the encyclopedia saying that policy says something that policy doesn't say is helping. What I saw is that we reached a compromise solution to include both images with the less "offensive" one below the more offensive one. I also saw that as soon as this compromise solution was reached, people who disagreed with having the "offensive" image at all wanted to move the bar. I did not like the initial compromise, and I suspect the others who took part in the discussion then did not either, but it was a perfectly reasonable middle ground. It's not being treated as such, instead as my position. We will happily start over from status-quo ante, and we can reach a new compromise. If you think that the current compromise solution is my starting positon for discussions, you are horribly mistaken. It is half-way between my side and the other side. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest starting a poll and be done with it? Need to examine the history/archive before proceeding. --Jqiz 20:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Ashibaka tock 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sex dolls
Maybe it would be a good idea to put in some info about the instances of lolicon sex dolls in japan and elsewhere because it does appear to be sort of widespread... WhiteNight T 01:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a nice sex doll. KingOfNigeria 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Image:Tifa .jpg


 * I think he was referring to the dolls similar to Real Dolls, not figurines. kotepho 10:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

protected
due to the edit war... I'm hopeful the involved editors can reach an amicable solution :) Just another star in the night T 07:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the secret word to get it unprotected back to semi-protected? I won't touch the image then until everyone agrees.  brenneman  {L} 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think full protection is unwarranted. The page is getting 20 edits a day or less, that is not enough to justify protection. Johntex\talk 17:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If the pro-image-removal crowd just abided by the no-consensus decision to keep the image, and tried to discuss whatever changes they wanted to make instead of enforcing their prefered version via edit warring, the article would not be protected right now. I'd also note that the pro-image-removal crowd has abused their adminstrative powers at least once - specifically, "Semi-protection ... is also not an appropriate solution to regular content disputes since it may restrict some editors and not others." and "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I banned you and Sn0rlax indefinitely the article would not be protected right now, but that wouldn't be productive, would it? Ashibaka tock 20:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you banned me indefinitely it would be your last action as an adminstrator. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jesus, could we stop the penis-measuring? Let's ratchet down the rhetoric a little bit and see if there isn't some way to find a compromise. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We found one months ago, when the article was stable for an extended period of time with the "offensive" image below the fold. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it obviously wasn't a very strong one, or we wouldn't be revisiting it again right now. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I look forward to someone proposing a solution that is NOT moving the image below the fold and including the other image at the top but is a compromise as opposed to a "fuck you, give me everything I want." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Hypocrite, I did propose something like that below (in-lining the image), but you are not yet supporting it. Johntex\talk 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Linking is A.K.A. "fuck you, give me everything I want." It was soundly rejected last time. You think linking is the best possible solution. I do not see how you suggesting that I should agree with you in all particulars is in any way a compromise. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And let's be clear here - both images is not my preferred positon. My prefered positon is one image, at the top, the one you find "offensive." My prefered position does not have a CSS hack to allow for easy censorship at proxy-servers or other such protection mechanisms outside of the users direct control. I have moved a great deal from my prefered position by allowing that not-representative Lolicon image, and by allowing a lame CSS hack. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As a final note, I believe the CSS hack increases the legal risk of article viewers. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (Two edit conflicts later) Leaving it as is would also be an example of 'give me everything I want'. Linkimage is a reasonable choice between the two extremes of including an image and not having an image.  Having read the past discussions I saw a lack of concensus for actions, but never "sound rejection". kotepho 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Exactly, I can see how Hipocrite may not prefer the linkimage approach, but it is clearly a compromise between other positions offered here. Johntex\talk 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, everything I want is the image of the reclining blonde gone, the one image at the top, and the CSS hack gone. Is there anyone actually advocating "delete all the images," or is that a strawman set up so that your starting position seems much farther away from what you actually want? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, as they have compromised from their extreme position. What is your reasoning for removal of the CSS hack though?  If you yourself are not a lawyer and do not accept someone else's lay opinion on copywrite matters why do you hold up your own idea that it may make it more illegal for someone as an arguable point? kotepho 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The CSS hack makes it easier for people not to view the picture. On obvious affirmative defense to viewing the image is that it was done with an absence of mens rea required to commit any crime under english common. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What would put the reader in the least risk is if the image is inlined and the reader chooses not to view the image. Johntex\talk 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is your law degree from, and whose retainer are you acting under? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a common sense statement, not legal advice. "To run the least risk of violating child pornography laws, don't view child pornography" - just like "To run the least risk of getting a DUI violation, don't drive under the influence of alcohol." Johntex\talk 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They already have an affrimative defense if they have less than 3 (note that 2 is less than three) and comply. Obviously we are not putting someone at risk just by viewing this page.  Then again, I'm not a lawyer... are you?  Oh, and I'm making a huge number of assumptions such as no priors, that you are charged under certain acts, etc.  kotepho 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Of interest
People interested in this issue (re the image) might also be interested in ongoing discussion at Talk:Gokkun. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing GFDL images
After trawling the image boards (both the currently linked and the old) for fan-art creators, I've: brenneman {L} 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Emailed several of them asking if they'll create or (release) GFDL images.
 * Further cemented the opinion that there is no encyclopedic reason for linking the image boards.
 * There are a few people I've asked and am awaiting responses from. kotepho 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There might not be a need to find GFDL picures if we're about to poll to decide the fate on the controversial picture soon. --Jqiz 03:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Free images are always perferred over non-free. If we have an image that is just as good that is free we should use it. kotepho 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then all commerical articles on animes series, mangas series, games, pornography, etc. would look like crap, since garbage fanarts are always available. --Jqiz 04:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those have clear fair-use cases whereas this one may not be; also notice how I said 'just as good' not 'crappy fanart'. Just because an image wasn't published in a lolicon manga does not make it not lolicon or representitive of lolicon. kotepho 04:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have to see the pictures to judge. --Jqiz 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see how the picture being proposed at the bottom represents lolicon. The picture is going to drag down the quality of the article a few notch.--Jqiz 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
What is the image supposedly adding to the article? All the debate seems to be about the image, but if it does not appropriately add to the article, the point is moot. My issue is partially artistic - I've seen better Lolicon images, but perhaps they are not available due to copyvio. If the scouring in the section above bears fruit, this may all be scrapped. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And why would it be scrapped? Is there a policy that states we have to use a GFDL image over fair use that I'm not aware of? --Jqiz 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely: Copyrights Ashibaka tock 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of image Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg
If you would read the Wikipedia rules on fair use for book covers: "Fair use images may be used  to illustrate an article discussing the book in question ."

Does this article discuss the book in question? No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mention the book except in the image caption. And, no, generally discussing the general subject that the book covers is not the same as discussing the book. If the Wikipedia policy on fair use of book covers was meant to say "Fair use images may be used to illustrate topics which are germane to the content of the book", then I think it would have said that.

Moreover, I think there is a good reason that it doesn't say that: it would be illegal. You can't just throw a copyrighted image into an article more-or-less at random. You can't use a copyrighted picture of Dakota Fanning to illustrate the article "Child", you can't use the cover of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon" to illustrate the article "Prism", and you can't use this image here.

If you have a problem with the Wikipedia fair use policy on book covers, you should take it up on the appropriate page. Meanwhile, I'll delete the image from the article - and from Hikari Hayashibara, where its also disallowed, and from Wikipedia since isn't an article on the actual publication in question, as we don't leave fair-use-only images lying around for possible use in a future article, exactly to prevent the illegal use seen here - if someone else doesn't do it first. I'll wait a day or two for rebuttal. Herostratus 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to delete Image:Kotori-Kan_Vol_2.jpg at the same time, which was only used in this article. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, I'll draw a free use image to replace it! Ashibaka tock 00:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The only policy on fair use I see is at Fair use and it does not mention any requirement for it to describe the subject. Part 6 of the policy refers to media specific policies of which I can find none (only guidelines).  You are quite correct that these uses fail outside of the bookcover and comiccover fair use guidelines though.  I think a more appropriate meassure would be to tag the image as  or  and as such, I will do that now. kotepho 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can just add a few sentence that discuss the comic. The Psycho 04:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...which would be irrelevant to the article. Ashibaka tock 12:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be irrelevant to the Hikari Hayashibara]] article, although obviously it still couldn't be used in this one. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above: A reminder: many things on Wikipedia are subject to consensus, but policy is not. You can't (for example) set aside NPOV in an article even if you get an overwhelming consensus to do so. And even more so for policies which are designed to protect the Foundation from potential legal trouble. So, the number of people who object to the removal of the image doesn't matter. What would matter is an argument (even if by just one person) that proves that Wikipedia policy does allow the use of the image here. None of the editors who I have addressed above have done so, except The Psycho, and then only if the strategy he envisions is actually implemented. I don't think such an argument exists, but I'll keep the question open a bit longer in case I'm wrong. Try harder! Herostratus 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Ashibaka, err.... very nice but um do we have a quality standard for illustrations? Even if you improved the drawing... I would question the inclusion of a pic with (basically) the caption "here is a pic that has never actually appeared in a lolicon but pretty much looks like the kind of thing in a lolicon". Same as I would question the inclusion of an editor's drawing of Superman that had not actually appeared in the Superman comic book
 * 2) Kotepho, a little more digging at Fair use shows the requirement to tag any image for which fair use is claimed, with (in this case) either bookcover or comiccover (I'm not sure which applies here), and that these tags assert that the image is being used only to illustrate the work in question.
 * 3) The Psycho, you make a good point. If it could pass muster that a small section on that particular publication is relevant to the article (say, if it is the most popular, or was the first, or whatever), I would think that the image could be used to illustrate that section. Your problem then would be... is it? I don't know for sure, but I think a section on a particular publication that is just an example would generally not pass muster. For instance, in an article on (say) Spy Fiction, would it be appropriate to have a small section discussing plot points and authorship etc. of (say) The Ipcress File on the grounds that Hey let's detail a typical example chosen more-or-less at random? Maybe. It's not usual. A section on The Scarlet Pimpernel (early ground-breaking work) or maybe James Bond would be more usual. I guess a rule of thumb might be: Is this publication worthy of a small article - and if not, is it worthy of a similar sized section inside another article? It's debatable. Write the section and see how it stands up to scrutiny, I'd guess is the best way to answer the question. But I'd recommend you work quickly.
 * 4) Fuzzie, I don't think that the image can be used in Hikari Hayashibara either. Recall the language of the image tag, that the image of a book cover must be used only to illustrate the work (not the artist) in question. I realize that one would think at first blush that any of an artist's work ought to be able to be used to illustrate an article on the artist in question, but it just isn't so.


 * Policy isn't really the most relevant issue here, fair use law is. I think you'd have an extremely hard time trying to argue that a review/discussion of the book/comic is relevant in this article, though, whereas it'd be clearly relevant in Hikari Hayashibara. Obviously if you're not discussing the work at all then it isn't allowed, but that's not what I was saying, which I think is obvious from context (the 'irrelevant' was in reply to the 'add a few sentences' comment). --Fuzzie (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with your first statement. Fair use law is not relevant because individual editors aren't allowed to bypass Wikipedia policy with their own interpretation of fiar use law. Ask KarmaFist. Right, Right, I understood what you were saying in response to The Psycho. I guess what you're saying is that in the Hikari Hayashibara article it would be appropriate to discuss the work. Hmmmm. You may be right. I'm not certain of that. Is that particular work worthy of discussion in her article - is it her most famous, or held to be her best, or whatever. If not, a similar argument applies - is it appropriate to discuss an example works chosen more-or-less at random. Anyway, it's moot until such a section is written... Herostratus (N.B. edit conflict with following entry)
 * Policy is the relevant issue here. Both of the cover of the objected pictures does not depreciate the value of the comics in question, which will gives wikipedia the right to use it. --Jqiz 17:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, policy is the relevant issue. Policy says nothing about (an editor's opinion on) whether value is deprecated or not. You can't prove that value is not deprecated (maybe if the article is not illustrated people will say Hey I've GOT to get me some of that and rush down and buy the book, but if the illustration is included they'le be like OK I've got all I need). Only a judge can decide if value is deprecated, and for all I know they use arcane rules that might decide that it is. And we never want things to get to the judge phase. So we have a policy. Herostratus 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mistaken what I meant. What I mean is the current fair use law does not require 'commentary' or for the article to be related, before the fair use clause can be invoked.  The one requirement, from what I can see, is that it is for non-commerical use, which is why we 'are discussing policies.  How can the value of the book be deprecated by showing the cover page?  It's freely available online when ordering the manga. By invoking we all cannot decide what deprecates the value of the item, because we are not "judges", no fair use image can ever be used in wikipedia, because we're not judges that can determine if showing the image deprecates the value of the item--Jqiz 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * heh heh, why not just take the caption of the Hikari Hayashibara image in this article as a discussion of the image. The Psycho 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But Jqiz, the current fair use policy does require commentary. True, the "General" section at Fair Use describes the general application of fair use, with (at least some of) the four bullet points being being arguably applicable to allowing this image in this context. But then drilling down to the specific, we find 1) there is a more detailed section specifically for cover art, which specifies the use of the bookcover or comicscover tags which clearly are for illustration of the work only, and 2) not only that, but this countexample of an example of a specific situation where fair use is not allowed: "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war". Not allowed. I don't see how the use of this image in this article could be much closer to that. Herostratus 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a false analogy. The Spanish Civil War is far removed from a painting that depicts the Spanish Civil War.  An image of a lolicon manga is lolicon.  Should we have Abstract art without images of abstract art?  Current we use fair use images there.  Should Salvador Dal%C3%AD have no examples of his work?  We have fair use images there.  That fair use is not stipulated on Art either.  The images in question could fall under those guidelines.  Those articles do not give critical commentary either. kotepho 02:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a realistic painting of a battle would not be "far removed" from the subject of that article, about as not "far removed" as possible since we can't include the actual Spanish Civil war itself in the article until we get a 3D realtime fullscale time machine working. Anyway, regarding the Abstract art example... I see that it is stipulated on Art that images of painting may be used to illustrate "the artistic genre or technique of the work of art". So hmmm it appears that that the Wikipedia guideline on fair use for fine art is broader than for album covers, book covers, and the like. I don't know why this is so, but it is, probably because the judges who made the case law for fine art said so, possibly because they felt that the dissemination of illustrated discussions of fine art serves a social good. But all this is speculative la-la land. What we have is Wikipedia guidelines and policy. And this picture is clearly not art in the sense used for art, it is a comicbook cover. Herostratus 03:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you are correct that a painting of the Spanish Civil War in an article on the Spanish Civil War is not a large leap. What I meant to say (as the listed counter example states) is an article on war.  There is an obvious IS A relationship between a piece of lolicon art and lolicon.  That cannot be said for the other case.
 * Uh, you missed a word, look again - it says "...to illustrate the [Spanish Civil] war", not to "...to illustrate war". So the two cases are very relevant, very nearly identical. Herostratus
 * Also, we are not using them in the sense that comiccover or bookcover were made for either as we are not discussing the actual work but using them as an example of a type or school of art. I have no problem with them being used under art because of this.  Please explain your logic on how this does not qualify for art.  I quote "This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof."  Note how it does not say fine art but art.  I can think of plenty of definitions of art that this qualifies under.
 * "We are not using them in the sense that comiccover were made for." Wow. Um that's the exact problem. You HAVE to use comic book covers in the sense, and only in the sense, that comiccover was intended for. You can't use a copyrighted comic book cover to illustrate an article on printing techniques, or magazine marketing, or drawing styles, or lolicon, or whatever you feel like. Look, I'd love to get a pic of Sara Dylan to illustrate her article. I'd love to use a book cover with her pic on it, because it has a nice picture and it's the only one available. I'd love to be able to say "Well, I'm not using this as a book cover in the sense that bookcover was intended, I'm using it just so people can see what what she looks like, so it's OK". But I can't do that. Because that would violate Wikipedia policy (and not coincidentally be illegal).


 * As for the other... it's not a drawing, print, or other work of art, because it wasn't published as such. (Of course, somewhere there presumably exists a physical drawing used (with other elements) to make the cover, but that's true of most every book or comic cover. If your interpretation had any validity we wouldn't need to have bookcover or comiccover or albumcover.) You can say anything is "art" and in a sense you'd be right, but obviously art is meant to cover specific cases which clearly does not include mass-produced products with lettering and price tag. Herostratus 07:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct though that case law has no relevance here though only wikipedia criteria does. kotepho 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the current wikipedia fair use policy guideline requires commentary; the law does not. We are discussing policies guidelines here, not the law. We do not have to follow guidelines to the dot.  We only need to determine if it is breaking the law without commentary added.  But I'm not a lawyer, so I will leave it at that.--Jqiz 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was trying to lighten up this page which has recently been ravaged by a neverending argument and two unhelpful polls. Hopefully an actual good free use image will come up in the next few weeks and we can use that instead. As for using "fan art", firstly I would think that's less of a problem in this article which is about an art style rather than a comic book like Superman, and secondly see Luna Lovegood for another example of free use triumphing over canon. Ashibaka tock 17:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ashibak, you did lighten up the page. Your picture made me laugh. I was just being all formal serious and stuff because, well just because. And right, your point is well taken. Actually, the exact picture you made -- the subject, not the execution =) -- would probably be allowable, because it illustrates a concept. Although we want to be careful about Original Research... Herostratus 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Paper, scissors, rock: guideline != policy != law

 * Re: point 2 &mdash; I know what the fair use tags are; I even explictly mentioned them!  They are not policy though they are guidelines.  This is an important distinction.  A policy requiring that guidelines be followed is nonsensical.  If it seems that I am not "trying hard enough" it is because I honestly am apathetic.  I also have some solipsistic nihilism tendencies that get in the way of proving things.  Nevertheless, I think you should remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your comments seemd a bit too pompous to me. kotepho 18:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think you're completely misunderstanding the "guidline" tag at the top of Fair Use. The default Wikipedia copyright policy would be that use of copyrighted images is not allowed at all. Mainly because this would make it hard to get any image for many articles, we have a guideline that carves out a fair use exception that will probably stand up in court (we hope). Not everyone agrees with it, some feel that the exception should not be allowed (and they have a good point, technically). But in no way shape or means is it ever meant that other way, that fair use is an optional, debated restriction. It's an optional, debated freedom. Glad I could clear that up. Next? Herostratus 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you are the one that is mistaken. For something to be policy it must be tagged as policy.  They are not tagged as policy.  Ergo, they are not policy.  As such, you should not call them policy.  kotepho 02:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, if you really don't think Fair Use should not apply, then what should apply? I assure you it's not "I can put whatever image I want anywhere I want to". It's Copyrights, which states (for images): "Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used. " (emphasis added, struck out the last sentence since you are claiming it is only a guideline and doesn't apply ehere). Since the work may be presumed to be copyrighted, and no one (including the person who uploaded the image) has claimed or shown that the copyright holder has placed the image in the public domain or given permission for use under GDFL or any other terms, the proper procedure (specified elsewhere) is that the image should be deleted right now, this minute, tonight. I have not done this out of consideration that a valid rebuttal may yet be made and because I believe in (limited) fair use, but you are free to. Next. Herostratus 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me try and put this clearly. The wikipedia help/templates/notes/etc on fair use are designed just to help you clarify if your uses fall under US fair use. They are not policy. Policy just means you can use images under US fair use law. The article you link to clearly describes itself as 'guidelines' and 'not official policy' about interpreting whether something is fair use or not. The articles are written in a conservative manner so that people don't try using them as justification for things which aren't fair use. Your argument that somehow, because the specific guidelines aren't necessarily policy, then fair use images can't be used at all, is ridiculous. The correct thing to do here is to find an image which can be licensed under the GFDL, and use that, not to make arguments based around your reading of non-policy templates, not to try and proclaim mere guidelines as policy. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said they did not apply. Try actually reading what I have written instead of whatever arguments you have imagined. kotepho 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, right, I understand now what you are saying. Let me see if I have this right. You're saying:
 * 1) Use of copyrighted images is forbidden, by policy. That's the default.
 * 2) But for good reasons, we allow fair use exceptions.
 * 3) The application of fair use is covered by guidelines, not policy. The statement in book cover ""Fair use images may be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" is a guideline to help you the editor understand how fair use law applies. As a guideline, it's not necessarily binding.
 * 4) The actual controlling authority for how to use copyrighted images in a fair-use manner is fair use law, specifically US and Florida fair use law since the servers are in Florida.
 * I'm pretty sure that's a fair summarization of what you are saying, so far, right? So what follows from that? This:
 * 5) And who decides under what conditions use of images in a fair-use manner shall be permitted? Why, you the individual editor do. You may follow the guidelines if you wish, but you don't have to, if you have a better, deeper, or clearer understanding of US fair use law (in your own judgement) than what is given in the guideline.
 * Right? I mean, how else could what you're saying be taken? You can restate point 5 if you want, but something like it necessarily follows from point 4.


 * I probably don't have to point out that, if that's what you are saying, that's just... wrong. First of all, fair use law is not so clear-cut that you can just read it in a lawbook and there it is. You never know how a judge is going to rule on a borderline case. The Wikimedia Foundation and the community has taken its best shot at setting a guideline after much thought and discussion, but its still a guess. But a hella better educated guess than Joe T. Editor's, I suppose.


 * Second, this is Wikipedia. If you start letting each editor determine matters of law... very soon you are going to have "Well, Article 8 paragraph 8 of the Constitution clearly states that copyright is to be for limited terms and solely to encourage creative endeavor, and current US copyright law doesn't meet either standard, so it's clearly unconstitutional, so everything is fair use."


 * Third, it would be just totally nuts for the Wikipedia Foundation to put the possible fate of the entire 'pedia in the hands of each individual editor's interpretation of the law. "Well, we're facing a million dollar lawsuit here, but Joe Shmoe Editor swears that the law is on our side, so no worries".


 * No, if you check the actual history... the reason that Fair Use is only a guideline and not a policy is solely because some editors don't think that Wikipedia should allow fair use at all (and they have a good case, given that we supposedly license all of our content under GDFL.) Nobody who knows the history or is seriously involved in the issue thinks that Fair Use is only a guideline and not a policy for any other reason. (well, OK, except [User:Karmafist|Karmafist]]). Herostratus 06:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would take your protestations for adhereance to a guideline more seriously if you were not an anti-porn crusader. The image, as it stands, does not violate the guideline. 170.148.92.42 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) I quote from the Fair Use page, "This page is meant as a guideline for dealing with fair use materials on the English Wikipedia — it provides general guidance on what is or isn't likely to be fair use and how you can best assist editors when attempting to include material under fair use. However, it is not official policy. You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal."

You should edit the page if you think that's completely incorrect. Obviously I'm not anywhere near a US lawyer, this is why we have pages on the site dedicated to people discussing these issues with people who are more aware of the copyright law, as is, again, discussed on the Fair Use page as the way to go if you believe your images fall under fair use but not under the stated guidelines/templates. I'm not aware you've done that, I can't see any recent entries about these images. And I'm quite aware of the history of the page, and I don't appreciate you being condescending about it. Again, you're babbling nonsense such as your constitutional example in an attempt to further your argument. That doesn't help. --Fuzzie (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, looking back, I think you're missing my point - my point is that if you can justify fair use, fair use is allowed even if you can't justify it by a specific part of the stupid template guidelines, with the justification being pretty much consistent with the rest of policy, not that fair use is automatic by you saying "this is fair use, under my completely different interpretation", as some people seem to be wanting to interpret it. If your argument is that the templates etc are policy set in stone, then I definitely disagree and can't understand how you've gathered that (other than being 'seriously involved in the issue' on the anti-fair-use side, perhaps - I can't recall having encountered you before, to be honest, so I don't know). --Fuzzie (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I get your point, I think. I just don't agree. I don't agree with the statement "if you can justify fair use, fair use is allowed even if you can't justify it by a specific part of the stupid template guidelines, with the justification being pretty much consistent with the rest of policy". I just don't, and I also think it really is a slippery slope.


 * As for the rest, I assume that "You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal" is legal boilerplate for getting the Foundation off the hook (and anyway applies only to the act of uploading, actual legal liability after that becoming quite complicated). I know that lots of smart people put a lot of time and thought into this issue, and that's not my interest. The result of all that discussion is (presumably) what's on the guideline and policy pages. And my reading of those pages just simply very clearly says that the image is not permitted here.


 * However, you win, for now, in that your (and others) arguments are cogent enough, even if they fall short IMO of being convincing, that I don't think the image should be immediately deleted out of hand at this time, hence I have listed the image for advisory opinions at WP:CV under "Fair use claims needing a second opinion". Perhaps someone wull come up with some insight, and we'll take if from there, fair enough? Herostratus 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly arguing fair use is justified in this case - sorry if you thought that - and I'm still hoping for GFDL images to render the whole argument moot... but, well, the result of the fair use discussions are littered all around, and avoiding the 'slippery slope' is why there's a mechanism in place for discussion. Anyway, thanks for listing it, I think it needed doing, hopefully it'll be useful. --Fuzzie (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * why not just take the caption of the Hikari Hayashibara image in this article as a discussion of the image. The Psycho 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's not really discussion, it's just identification. --Fuzzie (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's correct not only with regards to the issue of the caption, but to the whole policy/guideline/law tangle above.
 * Legal requirements are the foremost authority. The policy says that we must follow the law, but the guidelines are descriptive and not proscriptive. This is in accord with Herostratus' points one to four above.
 * There is a large gap there and it's considered a positive feature of wikipedia that it be filled by rational discourse (e.g. not polls.) This is why Herostratus' fifth point comes unstuck: The editor's "themselves" are responsible for writing the rules and guidelines, they can unwrite them as well.
 * If we can make a rational and compelling case for something being fair use we could potentially use it as such for purposes of Wikipedida's ruleset without it appearing in the guideline. It could still be illegal, were not lawyers, etc.  It's even possible (although unlikely) that we could commit something to the guideline and all be happily following it while it's still illegal.
 * These hypothetical guideline-avoiding discussion can only have one outcome, that would be identifying an image's fair use status withing an article. Hurray for sophistry.
 * None of these things are intended to reflect this discussion in particular but merely the "what's a guideline and when do we have to follow it" question. Which is slightly off-topic, but we're all along for the ride.
 * brenneman {L} 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But that would, first of all, lead to discussions in individual articles over the same subject (what is fair use?), just as is happening here, with the result being a guidline adopted for that article by the user's who are editing that article. That's a lot of doupicated effort, so we have a centralized discussion place (Fair Use and a centralized guideline. But much worse than the dupicated effort is... you know very well you're going to get editors going off the deep end. After all, they're editing the article; they really want that cool pic to illustrate the article. It belongs to the Betteman Archive... well, er... fair use, because... because we're not using it in a bad way! Right, Joe? Right, Ed! Right, Lou? Right! Consensus! There'd be nothing to stop the inclusion of whole masses of text and images regardless of their status... Herostratus 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Herostratus is 100% correct. I've been following a discussion of Wikipedia email list about fair use. From what I can tell, the WP rules will be stricter if they change. We have too many Fair Use copyright violation now. Most countries other than US don't have the broad US fair use type laws anyway. So the material can't be used in those countries. The point is to have material that can be used anywhere by anyone. By allowing fair use images, we take away the incentive for people to make or release copyleft images. FloNight   talk  00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason that it's a positive thing for this flexibility to exist is that it's built in limiting factor: during discussion fair use images should be removed from the article to err on the side of caution. Joe, Ed, and Lou must not attempt to vote on copyright, and if Xerxes makes a fiar-use objection than the image has to be removed.  I note that's not what has happened here, and that the page is protected in a version that violates fair use? -  brenneman  {L} 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images that are not manga covers or from mangas
Since manga covers were only used because they were thought to have a better fair use claim, I say we just ditch them and use an image from an art book (as we could not use a manga page either under comicpanel. This is assuming we cannot find a free(speech) one as I have fallen short so far.  kotepho 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Would it qualify under art?
 * 2) Can we call lolicon art a 'school' or 'genre' of art?
 * 3) Is anyone else really getting tried of all of this? =(
 * 4) Who is the lucky guy that gets to go looking for one?
 * Did you get a response from Kristal? Ashibaka tock 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see her on AIM or 4chan. kotepho 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To reply in some depth
 * The use of a comic cover (or other magazine cover) has almost unassailable fair use claim when the article discusses the magazine or even better mentions the cover image itself in a non-trivial manner. Addition of material in the article indicating this magazine's importance in the genre would be required for this image (or another like it) to become fair use.  Failing that, source a cover image from a magazine that demonstrably is important to the genre.
 * To satisfy fair use for a copyright fine-art image you'd have to find both citations that defined lolicon as an artistic genre and citations that siad that the image in question was an example of that genre.
 * The main page is now protected in a version that violates fair use.
 * brenneman {L} 00:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not accurate, and certainly not your first argument, which said the first picture on a page was fine but the second violated fair use. Can you give some examples where your standard for fair use has been fleshed out, or provide us an individual who is familiar through experience with copyright policy who agrees with your interpretation of it? I'd prefer if such an individual did not have a history of being a crusader for decency, please. Perhaps somone from WikiProject Fair use? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand the need for a source that lolicon is a genre or school rather than a theme, but I think an image that looks like lolicon and comes from something that self describes itself as lolicon would be enough to say that it is lolicon. This obviously isn't the best case scenario I just think we should explore other options rather than going on and on over the current images or other manga covers.  kotepho 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone thought about going to the imageboard in question (link presumably not work safe), and asking the people there? I imagine the lolicon enthusiasts there would be able to point to something. --Ashenai 12:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Use Comicpanel
You can use Comicpanel fine, per WikiProject Comics/copyright:
 * However a single famous or extremely important panel or series of panels, (a scene), is acceptable under fair use provisions when used in an article to which the image pertains and which makes a critical point about the scene or panel in question, and the point is more clearly made if illustrated. Please ensure the caption identifies the series, issue number and page number.

I'd say an image declared to be lollicon by a reliable source, or self described as such, makes the image pertain to the article. If the article makes the point that the image has been identified as lollicon, and given the image is essential to illustrate the concept, it meets the guidance. Its importance is denoted by the description as lollicon. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if saying something is lolicon is makes a critical point and it would be hard to justify why we used one instead of another. kotepho 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a critical point in terms of the article. The critical point is that "such and such an image has been described by blah blah as an example of lollicon imagery."  You don't need to justify using one over another; you simply use one that has been defined by an outside source as being lollicon; if someone finds a better one they would replace it with the better image, making sure the text is amended so as to discuss the new image.  A better image in this instance would be a free one or one that has been cited by more than one source as an example of lollicon, or one identified by a major news network or government. (I'm spelling lolicon wrong here, ain't I.) Hiding  talk 21:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find an image that has such an attribution it might be allowable. I'm not sure we can find anything that will meet a clear-cut fair use case.  Also, spell it however you want; we are certainly in neologism territory.  kotepho 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sourced from animenewsnetwork is this:
 * The January volume of Shiawase Pantsu, an adult lolicon manga, included a pair of panties as a promotional extra. It is not uncommon for erotic manga to include article of women's clothing as extras, however publisher Akaneshinsha proudly boast that the panties included with Shiawase Pantsu are for a 130cm tall girl, a size typically worn by pre-schoolers.
 * So the cover of the January volume of Shiawase Pantsu is a clear cut fair use example. Here's an image from Long awaited Shiawase Pantsu update(with pictures). Hope that helps. Hiding  talk 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Japanprobe.com isn't a reliable source. kotepho 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For that image it is. A reliable source needs to be judged by the information being sourced from it.  Are you seriously suggesting that the image in question isn't what it purports to be? If so, what's your source? The text is sourced from anime news network, which declares its source for the information as http://www.ultracyzo.com/, so I feel confident in that chain of verifiability to declare it a reliable source.  Anime news network can be regarded as a reliable source of news regarding anime and manga, unless you can demonstrate adequate reasoning why it shouldn't. The onus is now on you to provide sources opposing or show where my chain falls.  Hiding  talk 08:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you citing Cyzo Magazine and then saying that here are English articles that talk about it. We shouldn't be citing ANN or japabprobe though.  I cannot seem to find the passage that I am thinking of at the moment but "You should get as close to the source as possible.  Do not cite a blog about a NYTimes story, cite the NYTimes story." is a decent paraphrase.  kotepho 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also guidance that an english language source be preferred over a foreign language one. Sadly, you don't present any argument to support your claim that we shouldn't be citing ANN or Japanprobe.  I have already stated that they are sources which can be relied upon for the information sourced from them; were I sourcing a controversial scientific theory from ANN you could quite rightly discount it as a reliable source, but in this instance it is a reliable source. However, this argument is becoming circular; is it possible we can achieve common ground? Hiding  talk 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what we are disagreeing about. I just want an actual citation for the the mention in Cyzo and someone to at least look it over to make sure ANN/japanprobe isn't misrepresenting it. kotepho 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This actually might be better. We could probably get pictures from the publisher's website that qualify as promo photos too.  kotepho 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * しあわせぱんつ published by 茜新社 ISBN 4871828239 (w/) ISBN 4871828220 (w/o) author うさくん Publisher's website (w/o) Publisher's website (w/) Getchu w/ w/o. Not finding another other than the cover art so far.  This would be a lot easier if I knew 日本語. kotepho 20:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Response from Renchan
A person who claims to be a Renchan admin emailed me, offering help with this. I sent him the following email:

''Right now, we're looking for a picture that we can use without potential copyright issues. If there are any free (as in speech) lolicon images that you know of, we'd be very interested!''

''I don't know if you have any lolicon artists on your forum; if yes, perhaps one of them could be convinced to GFDL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL) an image he/she created, or put it into the public domain? The possible upshot of this for the artist, of course, is that his/her work could be displayed prominently in the Lolicon article.''

For now, it seems that something like the Hikari Hayashibara picture would be best; a slight bit of nudity (no genitals or explicit sex acts), implied sex is OK (possibly even preferable).

If there's an issue with Wikipedia logging your IP, please feel free to email me any pictures you think might be suitable.

Thanks for your help!

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It seems that a GFDL or free lolicon image would be ideal. Are my specifications (slight non-genital nudity, possible implied sex) agreeable? --Ashenai 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this saying that the current image is implied sex? - brenneman  {L} 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. The girl is hugging a bear with a strap-on dildo. --Ashenai 11:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant that it's not implied sex, the dildo has even got some wavy "wet" lines radiating out. - brenneman  {L} 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote explicit. Her panties are down! Would anyone object if I request the article be unprotected so this image is removed as a possible copyright violation? Protecting it with a copyright violation is odd. FloNight   talk  12:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, it's explicit nudity, and implied sex. There is a distinction. --Ashenai 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. There is nothing subtle or symbolic here. The image captures this child engaged in an sex act. FloNight   talk  14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess this depends on your definition of a sex act; the picture certainly shows a girl holding a dildo, and the picture certainly implies masturbation (with a dildo) has been going on recently, but we don't actually see masturbation going on. OTOH, this image does rather push the boundaries... Mike1024 t/c) 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see a child masturbating. I see a child being sexually exploited by an adult (unpicture, thus implied). This child is young, under the age 8. No chance that this sex act is planned masturbation with a dildo by this child alone. FloNight   talk  16:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking beyond of what the eyes see. The artist can draw whatever she/he wants.  A child masturbating is not out of the question.  --Jqiz 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true; I masturbated every single day when I was her age (and younger; as far back as my memories go) and have continued the tradition (with only one interruption due to hospitalization for food poisoning) until this very day. 4.253.47.162 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's art. Stop drawing parallel with real life situations.  There can be aliens, vampires, nymph, or whatever you can think of lolicon that the artist CAN draw.  Has your personal hatred of child pornography of any type blinded you of this fact? --Jqiz 09:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, for now, but because there's no replacement for it I won't unprotect just yet. This has nothing to do with what I think of the image, it's simply because of fair use laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CopyrightsAshibaka tock 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that protection prevents it from being made fair use. It's possible that suffiecient text could be introduced to make an image legal to use.  If everyone can agree to follow the policy and have no bookcover image until copyright is resolved, the page should be unrpotected. -  brenneman  {L} 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. It is NOT a copyright violation, it's perfectly well within fair use laws to be used here, and removing it while the page is protected so this outrageous action cannot be reverted is simply an abuse of admin powers. Ashibaka should undo that edit immediately and learn a little something about how fair use works before pulling ridiculous biased stunts like this. DreamGuy 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use laws are not the salient rules here; our policies are. Its fair use in this article has been questioned.  If there is a dispute in good faith over whether a work can be used, editors should err on the side of caution, and remove the disputed work from articles until the issue is settled.  kotepho 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is nonsense. This whole fair use thing started because there were two fair use pictures, so one of them was not fair use for some reason. Now it looks like people have changed their minds and now nether image is fair use. I've started my own wiki so I just don't care anymore. Gerard Foley 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur, too. Mostly *this* type of picture gets brush through with a fine comb with wikipedia's fair use rationale, all while there are tons of other images which does not abide by fair use rationale.  No one ever question those.  --Jqiz 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. These images do get more attention. Once that happens the copyright issues, fair use or otherwise are noted. After the image gets close scrutiny, all the problems are addressed. If there is any question about fair use the best action is to temp remove until it is resolved. That would be the usual course of action with copyright problems, right? Harm can come if they stay in, no harm for the time off the article. -- FloNight  talk  18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait now. Wasn't it stated we're arguing about the possible violation of a guideline, not the law, which no one seems to be contesting that the picture does not break any of the fair use laws, correct?  What harm can come out of it? --Jqiz 18:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Star trek

 * I pointed out over a week ago that the List of star trek episodes has over 150 fair use images. And the only thing to be done about it is "The fair-use rational for these images seems somewhat weak, especially as they also appear in the parent articles. - brenneman  {L} 16:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)" It seems that people who don't like the image are tiring everything they can to remove it. This fair use thing being the latest attempt. Gerard Foley 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mostly *this* type of picture gets brush through with a fine comb with wikipedia's fair use rationale, all while there are tons of other images which does not abide by fair use rationale. No one ever question those."

Go ahead and question them, then. Policy is policy. Ashibaka tock 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Missed the point. Why are everyone who are offended by this picture giving it special attention?  Which one of the offended has posted requesting the removal of all the pictures in the Star Trek episode?  If there is a dispute in good faith over whether a work can be used, editors should err on the side of caution, and remove the disputed work from articles until the issue is settled.  All 150 Startrek pictures are still up, last time I've checked.  And it also seems Brenneman have raised the question in the talkpage without pulling the images off the page.  Obvious double standard--Jqiz 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * brenneman has. I would remove all the pictures myself but then people would probably start shouting WP:POINT at me. Gerard Foley 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then he has not been following the same precedure he used to remove the image on this page. Would it be wrong to call the actions double standard? --Jqiz 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If the image is meets fair use and is not deemed illegal in too many countries to make use impractical, I think it should stay. It is more innocuous than any other example of a child engaged in a sex act. I am opposed to linking to imageboards that have child-adult sex act drawing or images of children engaged in sexually acts. So this one image if it meets WP policy is best. FloNight   talk  19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm for linking Renchan. You may find it disgusting, but I find it informative of the article in question.  --Jqiz 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh heavy sigh. "Double standard" is pretty easy to say, but sometimes thinking about it for more than five seconds helps.
 * List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes has over 100 carefully laid-out images. Each image is not only paired with text that describes episode the image is taken from, the shows are the subject of the article.  That fair use claim is about 350% stronger than this one, which involved changing a single image.
 * The copyright arguments are all very simple, and have been stated pretty clearly along the way for whomever took the time to listen:
 * Two fair use images cannot be used to illustrate the same subject.
 * A fair use image has to (suprisingly) be fair use.
 * While discussins go on and there is a reasonable challenge to fair use, the images are to be removed.
 * Everyone would be much better served by printing out the relevent policies and going to the park and having a good read. Not with this case or keeping or removing your favorite image, but just read the bloody things.  Try to understand what they mean as opposed to what they can do for you.
 * The policies and guidelines are there to help us write a better encyclopedia, not to be used as ammunition.
 * Anyone who is too emotionally involved in this article to read and attempt to understand other's arguments would probably serve the encyclopedia better by working on another page. Dispassion is a good thing.
 * Can we please attempt to use section headers correctly? to attempt to stay on target? While everything might be about a particular issue to you there are several issues here.  So keep the wet dildo away from the copyright laws and the image hunt unless it's required that we cross the streams.
 * Sorry for the rant,
 * brenneman {L} 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on everything except this you cannot use two fair use images thing. We should use the minimum that is needed.  Part 3 of WP:FUC The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. Obviously, there is not a blanket ban on more than one image, ever.  I'm not getting into the Star Trek case though, because I haven't even bothered to look at the page. kotepho 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I defer completely to that assessment. I confess to having made a mental shorthand of that section, despite having paraphrased it correctly at Talk:Lolicon.  If it required more than one fair use image we'd be able to use one. I love being carefuly corrected! ^_^  brenneman  {L} 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

headings and hidden agenda
Yes, people might be using the fair use claims as a way to remove the images. Yes, there is unequal treatment. That doesn't change the fact that fair use has been questioned and I think there is a legitimate disagreement. Debating about uneven treatment is a strawman at best and does nothing to help solve the fair use dispute. Also, could we at least have the debate pertain somewhat to the headings we are discussing under... please? kotepho 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But it bespeaks a hidden agenda, does it not? It's the difference between do they care about fair use (very commendable) or do they care about fair use for this image in particular.  Reason for removal:This has nothing to do with what I think of the image, it's simply because of fair use laws.--Jqiz 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so how are we suppose to interpret the fair use rationale, when it is a guideline? I'm dumbfounded on how to approach this.  It does not seem anyone have answer the query on WP:CV, either.  --Jqiz 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you accusing Ashitaka of having a hidden agenda in wanting the image removed? That would be ludacrous. kotepho 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I refuse to elaborate beyond this. Take it however you want.  --Jqiz 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, as the person who pointed out and argued through the copyio in the first place (and who has now put the images up for deletion, see below), I can assure you that there's no hidden agenda on my part. I won't be disengenous; I find the image beyond loathsome, and while I have no problem whatsoever with pedophiles, I consider anyone defending the placement of this image on Wikipedia to have quite lost their moral compass. Nothing hidden there. Herostratus 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you find the image beyond loathsome proves you have a hidden agenda. There is nothing immoral about this image, it's a perfectly nice image, there's nothing wrong with it.  The Psycho 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That assumes there is nothing wrong with an image of child pornography. Johntex\talk 02:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You should learn to distinguish between real child pornography and cartoon child pornography. The Psycho 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not get into this; no good will come of it. kotepho 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "The fact that you find the image beyond loathsome proves you have a hidden agenda." Doesn't it prove he has an unconcealed agenda? :) Ashibaka tock 05:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol right Ashibaka, glad somebody got that. I'm not going to be disengenuous about that, even if it weakens my arguments in the eyes of some. Because that would be dishonest. It would be neat if other editors would be honest enough to say "Well, OK, I do see this as just one battle in the Great Mission to stick it to the Uptighto-Fascist cultural-Falangist clique that rules society with an iron fist!" or whatever they're on about... but I don't expect that, because of course that can't be true. Can it? Herostratus 17:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit I'ld like to make
I'd like to add that the another reason that has been given for prohibiting computer/actor faked imagery is that as a matter of enforcement it is much easier to enforce a ban on everything than forcing the gov to distinguish between the real and fake ones and prove realness beyond a reasonable doubt. If no one minds this edit, I'd like to request an admin to unprotect the page briefly so I can make it. JoshuaZ 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already included: Also, the legality of simulated child pornography could make the prosecution of actual child pornography more difficult.. No need for redundancy.  --Jqiz 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Sorry about that. JoshuaZ 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Images at IfD
Not having received any contrary advice at the request for third-party comment, I have nominated Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg and Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg for deletion. Editors may view/comment on the case at WP:IFD. Herostratus 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copytright isssues don't go to IFD, which is why it says right at the top of that page "For copyright infringements, use Copyright problems." I won't do it because I've been involved in disacussions here, but someone perceived to be neutral should. -  brenneman  {L} 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I didn't see that. (Although it does seem that a lot of the other IfD's are copyvio issues too.) Herostratus 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion at IfD looks pretty much to be going toward no consensus, and will expire soon. Also, arguments made their did seem kind of convincing. I personally still think its marginally copyvio, but it's almost on the bubble, and its clear that enough editors feel its on the other side of the bubble, so I don't think a deletion for copyvio can be achieved, if it is indeed even valid. So I've requested a close with no consensus at IfD and I've moved on the the next step, see below. Herostratus 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review
Please review and add any necessary evidence and statements - User:Hipocrite/Ashibaka Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys made the consensus, I just implemented it. If it was a big deal some other administrator would have reverted it by now. Ashibaka tock 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the mention of your possiubly contrivercial action at WP:AN. Did I miss it? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a particularly interesting edit. A more productive thing you could do would be to find someone to make a free use image for you, or find a fair use image that falls under art boundaries. Ashibaka tock 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because editing a protected article to your prefered version is clearly an every day activity taken by scores of admins. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take my word that this has nothing to do with my opinion of the image. I probably should have asked some uninvolved editor to review the decision and remove the image for me, but hey. Not a big deal. It's one image on one article. Ashibaka tock 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why my draft RFC says nothing about your motives, merely that you overzealously used adminstrative powers in a method that is innapropriate on it's face. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, that's not the way an RFC works. "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed." Attempting to resolve this would include, say, explaining to me why WP:FU policy doesn't apply here. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This reeks of vexatious litigation. Kotepho 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, I think you are making a mistake. Read my post to this talk page before Ashibaka unprotected and removed the image. I was going to ask another administrator to do it anyway. You don't need a Rfc to express your opinion. Heck, I'll even agree that it would have been better to have someone else do it. We can say that here. But it is not a big deal since I was going to get someone else to do it anyway.  FloNight   talk  23:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how correct supporters of the action believe it to be, it should, ne, must have been done by an uninvolved admin. If A would revert the action and post a request for another admin to do it on WP:AN, that would be fine. As it stands, A is using adminstrative powers to enforce his prefered version of the page, which is just plain wrong. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, I sympathize with your point of view. I really do. By the letter of the law you are right. But, I think you are blowing it out of proportion in this instance. Also, we all have a responsibility to solve our disputes in a way that is least disruptive to the community. That means trying to talk it out here first. I urge you to pull back on the Rfc for now.  FloNight   talk  23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that User:RN replaced the image. Ashibaka tock 04:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Another note that there is an interesting thread on Hongfire discussing this Wikipedia page, which is responsible for some of the self-contradictory vandalism that happened here over the last week. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Really - I've been watching this page closely for a point where I can finally unprotect it. Modifying the thing that got the page protected WHILE the page is protected probably isn't a good place to start :\. I'll even flip the images daily if someone thinks it will help the debate :). Seriously though I'd like to see this thing end - I mean I thought I'd only have to leave it protected for 24 hours! Anyway, some other (non-involved) administrator can feel free to unprotect if they deem neccesary as well - but I'm checking this talk page at least once a day... Just another star in the night T 06:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I put a request on WP:AN(someone will probably read it sometime in May) a little while ago to have the image removed pending a resolution to the copyright issue. I think it would have been better if someone else had removed the image but it is clearly within policy to remove the image.  Kotepho 06:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded a comic book cover that meets the standard of good taste while illustrating the principle, i.e. it has a fully clothed little girl eating an egg and another carrying a frog. How about this?

Image:Kanon-Anthology05.jpg Apollo 14:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How on earth does that comic book cover illustrate Lolicon at all? It looks like it could be any kind of generic comic artwork to me, unless I'm missing some secret Lolicon-fan implication involving cute frogs and eggs. You might as well not illustrate the article (which might not be a bad idea). --Fuzzie (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to the implication that Kanon is a lolicon anime. Ashibaka tock 15:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically, Kanon hentai IS lolicon. They're in high school, and under-age.  Heck, so is any Sailor Moon hentai. Dracil 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It also doesn't change the fair use problems... which I believe are more salient at the moment. You guys can edit war over which image is better all you want after it is solved. Kotepho 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That little girl sucking the egg looks like lolicon to me. At any rate, this controversy is going to expand unless you get an illustration that is not child pornography. If you don't like this one, fine, get another one.


 * PS, you don't further indent every sucessive comment in a thread. All these remarks should be double-indent.


 * I'm drunk and I'll post whatever I want. Kotepho 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * eating an egg is lolicon?? what world are you from?? The Psycho 22:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

State of current discussion
I do not see how futher debate be it here or on IFD (which is headed to no consensus land) will be fruitful.

Should we draft a real RFC? WP:CENT? I'm not sure mediation is appropriate. What issues should be dealt with?
 * Should we have images
 * How should they be displayed
 * Fair use issues
 * Legal issues

Thoughts? Kotepho 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has decided to take the issue to Jimbo Wales. 65.95.42.66 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't the first time. I'm pretty sure people have posted about this on his talk page before (I don't have a diff/oldid sorry).  If you really want to get in touch with him the mailing list is probably a better place anyways. Kotepho 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we focus on the things that we can agree on? It seems that we're making a lot of progress. Choose a subsection, try to restrict yourself to comments relevent to that subsection, and comment on the content not the contributor. - brenneman  {L} 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs an image
Anyone willing to disagree with this? - brenneman  {L} 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles are always better with images. The article needs a image that meets Wikipedia guidelines. If none is available, no image can be used for now. There is always tomorrow.  FloNight   talk  01:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The preference is a free image
This also is taken as read, correct? If we get a few of those then the next section becomes moot. - brenneman  {L} 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * True, it is always possible that WP will rule out fair use images. We need to use copyleft (free) if possible. -- FloNight  talk  01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the use of free (in the sense of libre) but meh, it is just a semantic and pedantic point. Even if someone disagrees with this they are disagreeing with policy. Kotepho 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, good luck finding someone who draws decent copyleft lolicon. SlashDot 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The current page doesn't provide fair use rational for any comic book cover
This is an obvious point to apply pressure. Let the page be unprotected, remove all images until there is agreement on copyright stuatus, and the text is edited. - brenneman  {L} 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, again. The page was protected with the disputed image present. (I still think that is odd!) Much better to unprotect, remove the image and let others edit the article. There are other images that can be used. It may take some time to find them. But I am sure the community will find an appropriate image for the article. FloNight   talk  01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the article is unprotected or not, it seems that removing the image is appropriate due to the fair use issues, if only to allow addition of text which allows fair use of an image. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The current image needs to be removed or the page unprotected, or some text introduced that supports the fair use of this image. (We don't need to unprotect to do that, really.) Just about anything that isn't the current situation is preferred.  Kotepho 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ook. You are correct of course, it's possible to request edits to a protected page. o_O Can I suggest that we add "Revomal of disputed fair use image," to this list? -  brenneman  {L} 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See here. - brenneman  {L} 05:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Garbage. The current image is fine, but worse than an acceptable GFDL/CC image via our fair use policy. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 11:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The most appropiate image available should be chosen
This is an orthogonal point, and it would be very helpful if we don't cross the streams. - brenneman  {L} 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well...only if the image meets the guidelines. If not, no image. Of course an image is preferred for the article. Point being the same as the first comment. -- FloNight  talk  01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you consider to be the specific guidelines which you think an image here might not meet? --Fuzzie (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs to be a free image or available for use by exception to copyright law, fair use. And meet the Wikipedia guidelines about use with the correct information edited on to a tag with the uploaded image. This is especially important for fair use since the details for fair use on an articles is specific for that article. Then there is the need to document that the image is the type discussed in the article. This needs to be from a  verifiable reliable source to keep from being original research.  FloNight   talk  01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you define this? The least obscene?  The one most representative of the genre?  The most aestetically pleasing one? Kotepho 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The criterion is the most informative image is the one that should be chosen. Thus in the list above it would be:
 * Is this representative - citations etc.
 * The most aestheticly pleasing one - feature images etc.
 * The least obscene - although we'd never call it that.
 * Despite being not censored etc (spare the blue link) we also can and should take our readership into consideration. We aim for the "educated laymen" in the words we choose, and have a similar duty with regards to images.
 * brenneman {L} 03:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * sometimes, often "to be informative" contradicts "least obscene". SlashDot 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Appeal for WP:OFFICE-type action
I have asked Jimbo directly to delete this image by fiat, as basically a WP:OFFICE-type action.

I did this based solely on the content (not any possible copyvio status), mainly for raison d'etat. Basically I don't think Jimbo is gonna want to be blindsided by this image at some TV interview, I don't think the image is likely to be helpful to fundraising and publicity efforts, and all-in-all is just not a good image for Wikipedia to be displaying, at least in this context. Jimbo might agree or he might not, and even if he does he may well do nothing, but then again he may.

Here's what I figured: the logical next step would be to take the issue to Requests for comment. But if I do this, then will follow a great deal of heated discussion, with most likely no clear consensus obtained (which defaults to Keep), after which I would appeal to the Jimbo/the Foundation anyway and the image might be deleted by fiat after all.

While on the one hand I don't like to short-circuit the process, on the other hand I don't want to ask people to waste more time arguing if the image is going to be deleted anyway. And feel ill-used after expending their time and emotional energy on what would have proved to be a moot point.

If Jimbo/the Foundation doesn't want to delete the image by fiat, fine We'll then go to RfC, although consensus is unlikely IMO.

You may now enter the vilification of your choice below. Just to clear up one point, yes, this does prove that I'm worse than Hitler. Herostratus 16:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal to Jimbo to reject my appeal, I guess the best place would be Jimbo's talk page (User talk:Jimbo Wales). I think he reads it although I'm not certain. Herostratus 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)