Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September 11 Attacks Memorial

September 11 Attacks Memorial

 * Reason:This is a bit of a risky nomination for me as the wow-factor is admittedly low and it isn't an oversized panorama ;-). It isn't a large scale, visually-impressive memorial like the Tribute in Light but IMO it documents a wide variety of individuals' and communities' emotional responses to the attacks well and I think it is a photo that does it in a more personal and intimate way. While the individual tiles are undeniably non-NPOV, I don't think this is an issue as the image itself simply documents these views and doesn't attempt to push them on the viewer. I know it looks fairly soft in the thumbnail, but the detail is there at 100%. Also, FYI, this image shows the full extent of the memorial (it extends all the way around the fence), and while I think both images complement each other and are linked to each other on the image pages, I feel this nominated image has the better composition and more intimate feel.
 * Articles this image appears in:Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support POV is not an issue here; this is an image of historical value and it offers a lot of interesting objects to look at. It's technically sound and kept me reading for a little while. Nice shot. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Very moving. &mdash;  Jake   Wartenberg  19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems to be a copyright issue here. This photo is essentially just a photo of many copyrighted works. I don't think de minimis applies where the works are the subject of the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Where is the line drawn? What is the difference between shooting a photo of a building that has a copyrighted design, and shooting a fence of copyrighted tiles? Surely fair use would apply when the photo is intended simply to document the display of the work, as opposed to copying the design exactly? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See commons:FOP. There is an explicit exception for photographs of buildings in the United States. There is no similar exception for artworks (though there is in England and I believe Australia). Fair use means non-free, and must meet the non-free criteria and be low-res and ineligible for featured picture. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that link was supposed to refer to, but it doesn't seem to exist. No wait, I found it, you meant Freedom of panorama, right? So in your opinion, this is a clear-cut case and should not be on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, except as a low-res fair use image? Would it be the case that each of the copyrighted designs on the tiles are low-res, but combine to form a collage which is not restricted to low-res? It does seem like there are a lot of ways to be legally creative, at least in my non-legally-trained mind. :-) It is frustrating, as I am sure the creators of the work intended it to be visible to as many people as possible and had no mind to restrict use or reproductions of it, but I suppose you can never tell. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think David is right. It would be difficult to assign the copyright of the overall design to anyone, so it's valid to consider each tile separately, and they're depicted at a resolution consistent with other fair use images on WP. I think the Foundation is extremely unlikely to get sued for this, and the press would jump on any such suit, given the message of peace that the memorial seems to be intended to convey. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to agree. One that I would consider completely free, however, is the lower-quality alt pic, File:Image-Sept 11 monument in NYC 2 - August 2004.jpg, that you made.  Spencer T♦C 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, do you agree with PLW or with Calliopejen1? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards Calliopejen1. Sorry for being confusing.  Spencer T♦C 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm my opinion, per Diliff's request: I think this is ineligible. Non-free works are (absolutely) ineligible, and this is a photo of many non-free works. The fact that the arrangement of these non-free works may not itself be eligible for copyright is immaterial. I also think this should probably be deleted, because we already have plenty of free photos of memorials in the article. (photos of piles of roses and mourners and such that don't highlight copyrighted works.) this is essentially the same as using ~50 nonfree images in the article because you've photographed so many little artworks in one frame. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reluctant oppose per Calliopejen. The United States has freedom of panorama only for buildings.  Sorry, but this doesn't qualify for FPC.  Durova Charge! 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still Supporting Arrest me if you will, but I'm still giving my support to this image on the basis that images like this, this, this, this, and this clearly depict officially copyrighted and trademarked logos (officially meaning they actually filed something with a government for the rights to their design). Where does it say that that's legal? (That last sentence isn't meant to sound pompous, I actually want to know). ~   ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣ 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. My guess is that the legal justification for disallowing images like this nomination while allowing others which show copyrighted logos is that the latter are incidental to the composition and not the focus of it... Then again, I'd like to think that the law has a bit more common sense and could reach the conclusion that nobody is likely enforce the copyright on this image, but I suppose they have to cover their asses on 100% of the images to make that a single one of them doesn't result in a lawsuit? :-( Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we call this an out-of-focus image of a truck and a van behind a "graffitied" fence and that the tiles are necessary evils (incidentals)! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣ 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the image looses enc. because it isn't in a relevant article, and the subject is out of foucs and completely obscured.  Spencer T♦C 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support for the photographic merits and enc. This is also assuming the image is free, even though I personally feel that it is non-free. Do we want to ask someone over at Media copyright questions about it...someone there may know.  Spencer T♦C 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A note: I left a query about this image at Media_copyright_questions.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept on Commons --> full support.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 16:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, because I think a common sense interpretation of this situation is that this is a free image with no substantial encumbrances from the individual copyrights of the tiles. The continuum of fair use is fuzzy, but lots of fair use is free enough that it doesn't trigger our non-free content policy.  The subject here is the memorial itself; any particular tile is incidentally, even though the tiles as an ensemble are not.  Furthermore, there is an implicit understanding by those who contributed tiles that this is a public, collective work.--ragesoss (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Ragesoss. Fletcher (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking my questionable, perhaps too biased, perhaps "having-a-really-bad-week" oppose. Choose instead to not comment on the image, :-).   Mae din \talk 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)  Oppose:  I feel that the content is inappropriate and should not be featured.  I have nothing against 9/11 memorials per se, but this in particular shows a narrow, almost political pov which absolutely does not correspond with the reach of 9/11.  As the article says, more than 90 countries lost citizens as a result of the attack, and spurred hate crime and war, which has embroiled much more than just the US.  In light of that, I think that "featuring" so many US-only sentiments is unsupportable.   Mae din \talk 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I know I've disagreed with you a couple of times lately. No disrepect intended. :-) But it clearly is a POV memorial and that is the point of the image. We don't have any obligation to ensure that the photo itself is non-POV. It almost sounds like you're falling foul to NPOV with your oposition. A FP can illustrate one aspect of a subject - it doesn't have to be a multinational memorial to have enc significance. If anything, it is a historical snapshot of jingoism too. ;-) Maybe it should be added to that article... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I realised while I opposed that my own pov was pushing in, but the crux of my oppose is not so much that the content is pov, but that it would be insensitive to feature it. I think that, when the event is a couple of decades old, this sort of image won't grate so much.  And I apologise for however this comes out sounding, but I think it would be a disservice to Americans to feature their nationalism in such a context.  And your disagreements are posed in a friendly way; no need to apologise, :-)   Mae din \talk 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know we have at least one FP with obvious POV: File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG, showing people in Tanzania protesting the Israel/Gaza conflict.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have a FP of a political cartoon (which naturally showcase some form of POV) at File:The Gerry-Mander Edit.png.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You find sentiments like "freedom", "peace" or "bless America" to be controversial and embarrassing expressions of patriotism? That says more about you than it does about the people who made these tiles.  There was jingoism after 9/11, but it is not captured in this photo.  Fletcher (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do find the whole "God Bless the USA" thing a bit irritating... As if America is the last bastion of freedom or something. The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with American freedom, but the country felt the need to declare they were 'still free' despite the terrorist attempts to take it away somehow. Par for the course when it comes to American Patriotism though. :-) But that is a completely different topic. Other than that, I don't find the tiles particularly controversial. NPOV, sure, but nothing that would stop it being appropriate for the article or FP. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just going to point out that the photographer is not American, so inherent POV is minimal. But he kind of covered that with this last comment. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well, everyone has a POV. I just don't express mine on tiles. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fletcher, you have misunderstood my comments and somehow have taken away the impression that I find peace and freedom controversial. That, of course, is not true, and in fact, is what the minority of those tiles depict (at least the ones in this photo).  That is my issue.  I merely think it too insensitive to be featured, and the fact that we have other featured content which I may also have that opinion about isn't really relevant.  I probably would have opposed them, too.  I never put forward an opinion thinking it should be "right", I expect people to disagree.  But please, don't make it personal.   Mae din \talk 07:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But Maedin, it isn't really our place to be sensitive or make judgments on the sensitivity of others. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to be as objective and truthful as possible, not tip-toe around issues for the sake of how the content might offend people in some way. Wikipedia is not censored, and we have an obligation to uphold that, even if it against our personal sensibilities. Of course there is some room for opinion in this process, but really you should be voting based on our existing criteria, not your criteria. :-) And besides, even if sensitivity was a significant criteria, I think a greater number of people would likely take comfort from the content of the image (as the central tile suggests) than be upset by it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not many arguments there, I uphold that Wikipedia should not be censored. But that creed isn't quite the same as content that is featured.  I would draw the line at a particularly gruesome picture, or a bit-too explicit sex illustration.  Where they are appropriate, however, they are welcome.  I agree with you, though, that my oppose is far from objective and is based on tip-toeing around an issue that I think needs a more sensitive approach.  If you think I've gone much too far into this territory and my oppose bears no weight, I will strike it.  Eeeep, sorry for the drama!  /me hides . . .  Mae din \talk 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha no worries, but you have gone and contradicted yourself again by saying Wikipedia should not be censored, then saying you draw the line at featuring gruesome/explicit images... Nevermind, I think the greater issue with this may be the licensing anyway, so it might end up being moot. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Would fellow reviewers please move editorializing to a different location?  My nearest relative survived this attack from a high floor.  He was one of the very last people out of the building and most of his coworkers weren't as lucky.  I joined the Navy and went to war because of this day.  When I come to FPC, I'd rather review candidates than see this sort of off-topic debate.  Durova Charge! 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be the first to admit we got a little off-topic but I'm not entirely sure what your relative's survival and your decision to go to war adds to the discussion either...? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm just going to nominate this photo for deletion bc I believe it fails NFCC8 and NFCC1. This may end this nomination, so interested parties should comment at IFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg. MER-C 09:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose as copyright violation. Additionally, the image tends to fail WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As was discussed (in this nom, and others), I don't think it does fail that. If a subject has an inherent bias, we cannot counter that. We can only ensure that a balanced viewpoint is achieved in the article. A single image (which by definition cannot encapsulate the content an entire article) should not be subject to the same requirements as an article for that very reason. Anyway, it doesn't really matter as the image is due for deletion. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is important to have in Wikipedia, that doesn't make it Feature worthy. It is just not compelling enough on its own. If you need a story to understand an image, it's not fulfilling its role as an image. The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO. Also copyright issues seem to be unresolved (unresolvable?). Kaldari(talk) 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept on Commons. Unsuspending so we can appraise this on photographic quality. MER-C 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How should we go about this, then? The majority of the opposition was based on the assumption that it was non-free, but striking them out seems a bit drastic... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens. Relisting should give the opposers an opportunity to update their reviews, but if they don't they won't be considered. MER-C 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's not valid to call photographs of other people's artwork completely your own work. I would support deletion of the image, but I do not think it is feature worthy for that reason. Further, I don't consider it particularly striking. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming the artwork as my own work. I'm only claiming that I took the photo of the collage, which is completely different. It's pretty clear this is a collaboration and not something I created myself. I'd have been more than happy to give credit to the individuals who created the tiles, but there were no credits on the fence. You seem to be taking a moral line of reasoning rather than a legal one when you say you'd support deletion of it (you missed the boat there, anyway). If you were to take a moral standpoint on photographing works of art, then does that mean you'd like to see all our photos of artwork deleted too? I have certainly don't intend to break the law in taking documenting the world around us, but this isn't about crediting me - it's about showcasing important objects/scenes on the encyclopaedia... Deleting the image won't help us out there at all. But okay, if you don't find it striking... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that was actually a typing error. I meant I wouldn't. Basically, from a legal standpoint, I'm sure we're alright (hence not deleting) but, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't think this is a reflection of our best work in terms of freedom. No offence was meant- it's an excellent documentary photograph, but I don't think it's really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per my original vote(s) on the matter. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I've informed all previous voters to come back and !vote again. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per my original vote. It's an attractive and useful image.--ragesoss (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support also per original !vote. Encyclopedic illustration of how people reacted during that time. Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose my old rationale still stands, but I don't fully agree with it any more. I'll posit this new one: this is an important image to have on Wikipedia. It holds personal significance to many people. The problem is that it doesn't hold that significance for a lot of people. We could find a photo like this for every disaster occurring in the US. It is a very ordinary photo. PS, why was it re-nominated? thank you to  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» for letting me know i needed to vote again. ~ The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was renominated because the main reasons for opposition at the time were related to the licensing. This issue was resolved after the nomination had expired, so the nomination was re-started. I don't think it matters that it doesn't represent or hold significance a lot of people. Wikipedia isn't here to please everyone. I mean, do all of our FPs hold significance for most people? Probably not. Not everyone is particularly interested in birds, insects, or architecture for example. That doesn't mean we shouldn't feature pictures of them if they illustrate an article well. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that theory would limit us only to images of UNESCO World Heritage Sites... ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Same as before. Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More of an issue in the thumbnail than when viewed at 100%, but fair enough. It was taken with the widest aperture available to me (f/4) at the time. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per my orginal vote. —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as before. Even if Commons didn't remove it as a copyvio, it still is one. It also retains systemic bias issues. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It being a copyvio is only your opinion but it seems a pretty poor reason to oppose given it has already been discussed and resolved. The licensing/legal aspect is completely separate to this nomination. If you still have a problem with it, you should re-raise it on Commons. Also, it doesn't have systematic bias issues any more than the majority of our FPs are by virtue of the contributors being from western countries.. This was covered above. It documents an interesting and historic scene. If the scene is biased, so be it. Many scenes are. The solution to systematic bias is to encourage alternative POVs, not to reject the 'mainstream' POV. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as before.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for its EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)