Jump to content

Talk:Czesława Kwoka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Query

[edit]

Did you mean, she appeared in an article of the "National Geographic" rather than the "National Geography"? Gjm5025 04:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody could get the copy of that article, we could probably verify most of the info about her, currently much of the bio comes from not that [ed. (NYS): that not] reliable webpage.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Today I added the ed. interpolation; original poster seems to have mistyped the order of words that were intended. --NYScholar (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Re: the references to the National Geographic Magazine in the YouTube video clips by "tomasmarec": it is possible that the reference being made by that uploader is to National Geographic Polska, the Polish-language edition of the magazine and not to the English-language version. The online archive for that publication appears to be searchable only by year and monthly issue, and its database goes back as far as only 1999 (not 1995): Index= an search page for an example there. If someone has access to a library in Poland to check back issues to 1995, or in a library which has extensive Polish periodical holdings, it might be possible to look for the issue and see if there is a feature article about Kwoka (or Brasse or related topics) in it. The official Website of NG in America, http://www.ngm.com, does not allow free access to all of its back issues via its online archive; some features from 1995 issues are accessible online, but not all, and I haven't seen any relating to Kwoka via such a search; its "Table of Contents" search for magazine covers seems to go from 2005 to 2008. It might be accessible via LexisNexis. I haven't tried that yet. May try it another time. --NYScholar (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it through searches in LexisNexis or the Wilson Combined Index (Articles First, etc.) --NYScholar (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

[edit]

(ec) Somehow all of the edits that I made have been wiped out by later editing; I don't know what happened. The image at 350 px is way too large for most browsers and does not meet WP:MOS for sizes of such images; it is an illustration of a section of an article and takes up much too much space; resized to 180px (recommended size for most browsers); my revamping into "Personal history" section, etc. is lost; the lede just needs to be one coherent sentence; it lacks sources in many places; no source for the NG article (as mentioned); such statements cannot remain undocumented as is (unsourced). --NYScholar (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source

[edit]
[see #Query posted by another user above. Added sec. heading. --NYScholar (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I do not find any other reference to the National Geographic Mag. article other than Wikis based on the earlier version of this Wikipedia article, which all seemed to come from the "more information" provided in the long caption to the You Tube video clips posted by "tomasmarec" and which are not reliable or verifiable. One would actually need to produce a specific article publication: author, title, National Geographic Magazine issue, date, and page numbers, which we do not have. This ref. to the NGM is a loop, being cited over and over on the internet based on the material posted by "tomasmarec"; we do not know what source or sources he used for that long caption. The original version of this article in Wikipedia seems to have taken the information almost verbatim from that caption (or vice versa?). It is not a coherent presentation; I revised it into sections; redid the lede (opening para.), and in doing so, I realized that there are many undocumented (unsourced) statements (all of which seem to derive from "tomasmarec". I would like someone to provide an actual full citation to the National Geographic Magazine article that "tomasmarec" says is devoted to this 14-year-old Holocaust victim. Right now, I am not convinced that this article is documented with reliable sources or that it is even accurate. The only verified information so far is the information relating to the painting and poem. The photograph uploaded to Wikipedia Commons may be a copyright violation; there is no way to know whether the person who uploaded it actually took that photograph in 2004 or whether that is a still from the video that "tomasmarec" has posted, which itself would appear to be a copyright violation. What is the source of "tomasmarec"'s video clip uploaded to You Tube? The series of photographs is credited to a photographer in Auschwitz and the Wikipedia Commons photograph appears to be taken from that (not original). This article has some problems. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in captions in You Tube videos

[edit]
For purposes of comparison and possible problems of both Wikipedia:Plagiarism and WP:Copyvio that appeared in earlier versions of this article, here is the text in the caption of the You Tube clips posted by "tomasmarec"; one does not know from whence (what sources) that text derives:

Czesława Kwoka-prisoner 26947 in Auschwitz German Camp-(August 15,1928 - March 12, 1943) was born in Wolka Zlojecka, a small village in Poland. She was deported to KL Auschwitz German Camp(1940-1945) from Zamość as prisoner 26947, on December 13, 1942. She died at the age of 14 on March 12, 1943.

Her mother Katarzyna Kwoka was also in the same transport (number 26946). On February 18, 1943, her death was registered at KL Auschwitz.
Both Kwoka and her mother were Roman Catholic.
Czesława Kwoka appeared in an article of the National Geographic Magazine in 1995.
Murder of Zamość children in Auschwitz
At Auschwitz German concentration camp 200 to 300 Polish children from the Zamość area were murdered by Germans by phenol injections. The child was placed on a stool, occasionally blindfolded with a piece of a towel. The person performing the execution then placed one of his hands on the back of the child's neck and another behind the shoulder blade. As the child's chest was thrust out a long needle was injected into the chest with a toxic dose of phenol. The children usually died in minutes. A witness described the process as deadly efficient:
As a rule not even a moan would be heard. And they did not wait until the doomed person really died. During his agony, he was taken from both sides under the armpits and thrown into a pile of corpses in another room.... And the next victim took his place on the stool
To trick the children that were to be murdered into obedience Germans promised them that they will work at a brickyard. However another group of children, young boys by the age of 8 to 12, managed to warn their fellow child inmates by calling for help when they were being killed by Germans:
"Mamo! Mamo!" ("Mother! Mother!"), the dying screams of the youngsters, were heard by several inmates and made an indelible haunting impression on them.
Some of the children were also murdered in Auschwitz gas chambers.
Before the German invaded Poland, Hitler announced, "The destruction of Poland is our primary task." He also commanded, "Kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need." Hitler's head of secret police, Heinrich Himmler, promised that "all Poles will disappear from the world." POLAND'S HOLOCAUST: 6 MILLION CITIZENS DEAD (3 MILLION CHRISTIANS and 3 MILLION JEWS) Poland lost six million citizens or about one-fifth of its population: three million of the dead were Polish Christians, predominantly Catholic, and the other three million were Polish Jews.
CZESŁAWA KWOKA - POLE, 14 YEARS OLD.
IN AUSCHWITZ SINCE 13 DECEMBER 1942, DIED 12 MARCH 1943.

CZESŁAWA KWOKA- POLKA, 14 LAT.
W KL AUSCHWITZ OD 13.12.1942 R., ZGINĘŁA 12.03.1943 R.

--NYScholar (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One needs to do a search for the material in that long caption to see from what sources it was taken (without credit given, it appears to me). --NYScholar (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one goes by to the earliest version of the article (2006) in Wikipedia, one sees that it was created by the same person who added the photograph to Wikipedia Commons and that no sources were given at all in that version or for some time; the material from the fee-based source may be the source of both the long caption in You Tube (which seems to come from later versions of this Wikipedia article and/or the same source used by various editors): see Diffs.. I'll add later diffs. for purposes of comparison with the You Tube caption (looped?). --NYScholar (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This anon. IP user edited the article, adding the material without citing sources, apparently engaging in plagiarism from the unacknowledged source(s) here: Diffs.; subsequent editors have maintained the apparent plagiarism, and it appears that much of the You Tube caption created by "tomasmarec" repeats the Wikipedia article information (and is thus not citable as a reliable source) and/or plagiarizes from the same source that he and many or all of the Wikipedia editors do not acknowledge and do not cite. This article needs reliable and verifiable source citations and all readers need to be able to check them to make sure that copyright violations and/or plagiarism do not continue in the writing of this article. --NYScholar (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material from the You Tube caption by "tomasmarec" appears plagiarized from Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany#Murder of Zamość children in Auschwitz, which takes material from sources like excerpts from work by Gitta Sereny--e.g., at the Jewish Virtual Library (another online encyclopedia that Wikipedia generally does not allow as a source in articles (I've seen in editing battles from a few years back). E.g.: "Stolen Children". This article needs further work to prevent such possible plagiarism/copyright violations. --NYScholar (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See source note no. 15 in the Wikipedia article linked just above:
  • Lukas, Richard C. Did the Children Cry? Hitler's War against Jewish and Polish Children, 1939-1945. Hippocrene Books, New York, 2001.[1] (online version) (Cited many times throughout that Wikipedia article sec.; that is apparently where the writers of the Wikipedia section took material from, which is simply repeated w/o source citations at all in the You Tube clip caption(s) by "tomasmarec" and then put into this article on this person in Wikipedia. This is a feedback loop of plagiarism, and it is not acceptable work in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've also tagged and added some discussion in the image page at Wikipedia Commons and have questions about the copyright status (poss. copyright vio.) of the uploading of the series of photographs in Wikiipedia Commons. Since this article was originally created in 2006 and since the "painting" cited by Edwards/Schreiner was developed apparently in 2007, and since Edwards' blog refers to and links to this photograph as it is currently posted in Wikipedia, I am wondering if this Wikipedia article's photograph is the source for the photograph which they then used to create their painting etc., or vice versa. I would not like the sole purpose for this article to be to promote the painting, as that is problematic. With the problems of past and possibly continuing plagiarism/copyright violations in the text of this article (see above comparisons) or, at the least, unreliable sources, I really wonder at the status of this article in Wikipedia. If the artist and poet want to promote their painting, they are already doing so in the blog which links to their publication(s). Otherwise, I do now wonder at the notability of this subject w/o ref. to the painting. There is something circular it seems going on here. I wonder if the uploader of the photograph (skyliber) is in any way related to the creator/s of the painting/verses or not? (I don't see how that uploader has the right to license a photograph of a series of photographs created by the photographer in Auschwitz Wilhelm Brasse to Wikipedia Commons; that seems to be a copyright violation.) More reliable sources are needed that we can check and verify better than has currently been done. --NYScholar (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) --updated. --NYScholar (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information about photographer Wilhelm Brasse in "'I will never forget these scenes'", published in guardian.co.uk on January 20, 2005: "The Nazis at Auschwitz were obsessed with documenting their war crimes and Wilhelm Brasse was one of a group of prisoners forced to take photographs for them. With the 60th anniversary of the death camp's liberation approaching, he talks to Janina Struk."
I think that Wikipedia could use an article on Brasse, not the artwork based on his work. The fact that an artist and poet created a work based on his work could be mentioned in an article on him; he and his subjects (those photographed) are more notable in my view than the artwork based on his series of photographs. Both this little girl and Brasse seem notable enough for articles in Wikipedia; the artwork can be mentioned in both such articles. I've provided contextual sources for understanding the notability/significance of this little girl. She is representative of millions of Holocaust child victims. --NYScholar (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Wilhelm Brasse in the Polish version of Wikipedia. It would be helpful if someone could created an article on him in the English version of Wikipedia as well. There are no sources given in that Polish Wikipedia article. There are plenty of resources about him accessible on the internet that can provide reliable and verifiable sources in English for an article about him in English Wikipedia. Then the red links will turn blue. --NYScholar (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article Wilhelm Brasse and then provided additional sources for unsourced material in this article as well. I hope that both articles enable readers to understand their notability. --NYScholar (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The photographer is Wilhelm Brasse, who is still alive. The blogger (Theresa Edwards) uploaded the photograph previously in Wikipedia Commons but since deleted for copyright violation to her blog. It is not Edwards' photograph, it is Brasse's photograph, and the photograph is still copyright-protected. Just because someone has placed a copyrighted photograph in her blog (a website) does not enable people to upload it from there to Wikipedia; there is a copyright violation loop that occurred here. I've removed the image. I'm hunting for proper template to place on it; I have commented in the talk page of the image as well. --NYScholar (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is in the edited-out image (see in preview mode in article). Notified uploader. --NYScholar (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox person template

[edit]

Has the links re: permissible use of an image of a person. --NYScholar (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current image (edited out due to speedy deletion review)

[edit]

Still problematic. Needs review. Currently edited out. --NYScholar (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to place the speedy deletion template in such images while their copyright status is still under review. --NYScholar (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template has once again been reverted; I am not going to engage in an editing war over this image. It has been marked for speedy deletion, and properly categorized as such. The reversions are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy re: images marked for speedy deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that administrators reviewing the image status (now that it has been further revised by its uploader to include further information referring to copyright laws) may agree with him/her and others that the image is of important enough historical and educational value to remain in Wikipedia under the policy governing "fair use". Toward that end, the image remains visible (and thus not an "orphan" in Wikipedia). I leave it to others to decide this matter. One does need to keep in mind that the image is a still created from a You Tube video (see References and resources sec., which provides the links to those videos by "tomasmarec" in You Tube). Above I provide information about the material in the "caption" ("more information" link in You Tube) so that one can see that the source is not entirely reliable. So far, no one except for "tomasmarec" provides any reference to an article in National Geographic; its online archive does not go back to 1995; to find the article that he (and only he) refers to, one needs to go to the library to find such the specific issue and the specific article that he mentions. I have not been able to verify his claim. That claim does not currently appear in the text of this Wik. article for that reason (it is unverified). A full citation (author, title, journal, issue no., date of public., page refs.) is necessary for documentation of such a statement/claim. (See above: #Query, which makes the point that the source ("tomasmarec") is not reliable for a Wikipedia article; the actual full citation is needed. --NYScholar (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
"Users may view videos on the site as long as they agree to the terms of service; downloading through one's own means or copying of the videos is not permitted." That would include copying of still photographs via copying of the videos; there is no indication in those videos that copyright permission [from Wilhelm Brasse and/or from the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (which exhibits his photographs), or from the filmmakers of The Portraitist, or other potential copyright holders of record] has been obtained; the photographs in the videos were taken by Brasse in 1942 and/or 1943 (after 1923). The videos in YouTube do not even acknowledge that they are photographs taken by Wilhelm Brasse, although the sources cited throughout this article indicate that they were taken by him. --NYScholar (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [added some info. in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I have delinked the videos uploaded w/o proper copyright clearances to YouTube by "tomasmarec" due to the above Wikipedia policies and those in the YouTube#Terms of service, which appear to be violated. --NYScholar (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons, I have delinked these videos from Wilhelm Brasse and referred readers there to this talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For more information re: Wikipedia policies concerning text, images, and media, please see: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The angle of the image Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg makes it clear that it was copied into the blog from the version previously used in Wikipedia and the deleted Wikipedia Commons larger group of photographs (which is the same angle as that in the YouTube video), at least that is how it appears to me after examining and comparing the various versions of these photos previously deleted from Wikipedia Commons in a larger format. The larger photo (uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec" it appears) contains this piece cropped here. The blog (TACSE) took it from the Wikipedia article URL prior to its deletion. This uploader has uploaded it yet again to Wikipedia via another cropped version with the same angle. The source used by "tomasmarec" is not identified and not clear either by "tomasmarec" or by this current Wikipedia uploader. --NYScholar (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Portraitist (about Wilhelm Brasse)

[edit]

I've added the EL for the film as well as additional source about its premiere (see Wilhelm Brasse. The footage in the Adobe Flash content on the documentary film production site contains images that appear to have been uploaded to the now-deleted YouTube videos without permission of the photographer or the filmmakers. For those who want to see the origins of these images, one needs to visit the site and to read about the film; these images appear in the film, which was made for Polish television and shown both in London and at at least three Polish film festivals; excerpts from reviews on on the official documentary film production site (see the EL info.). --NYScholar (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[According to Keane, as cited now in Wilhelm Brasse, the film is ordered directly from its distributor via E-mail and may be easily accessible to many people, some of whom who may have captured parts of it in video compilations that are being distributed (illegally) via the internet. --NYScholar (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Image-deletion caption templates

[edit]

These are required by the templates in the image pages. They are not supposed to be deleted. Deleting them misleads readers of this article. For information, please click on the images and see their talk pages. Further explanation is already there, in cases of both images. WP:BB etc. does not apply. The template requirement is Wikipedia policy. This is not an editing matter of the content of the body or lede or other sections of an article; it is a matter pertaining to the copyright status of images being placed in the article. Any kind of potential copyright violation jeopardizes the integrity of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia editors are required to alert Wikipedia to any potential copyright violations which might endanger Wikipedia and to place appropriate notices required by the templates after doing so. --NYScholar (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images were properly templated and removed by a bot due to the templates (I did not remove them yesterday, the bot did due to the dates on the original template notices, which were properly placed). Creators of images are not supposed to remove speedy deletion templates from image pages: see the templates; action is done as date indicates.

To both registered users (including the image creator[s]) and anon. IP users: please stop reverting the bot action. It results from the copyright violations in the use of the images. Read the image pages; full discussions are there. This continual action by these users will be considered vandalism. --NYScholar (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot removed the image

[edit]

I did not remove this image; the bot did; then Poeticbent reverted that later; I restored what the bot did; Poeticbent is the uploader of the image and is not supposed to be deleting other editors' speedy-deletion templates or altering them, as Poeticbent has now done over 4 times. The uploader is not supposed to delete templates; the uploader is free to add "hangon"; not to delete or change speedy deletion template and also not to remove (as done several times) the speedy-deletion caption. I edited back in the image in the preview mode so that the image could be restored w/ the speedy-deletion template, as it now is. There is a time frame involved in the speedy-deletion template. I do not know what triggered the bot; it was not me, bec. it occurred when I was not online. The uploader needs to let the process take its course. The materials that the uploader has used continually to re-add this image to Wikipedia violates prohibitions against photographing its exhibits explicitly made by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and they are not in the public domain; the Museum is the owner of the photographic exhibits; the uploader used poor sources posted in YouTube which violate actual copyrights and is putting this article in jeopardy. I and a few others (not Poeticbent) have devoted a great deal of our time to developing the sources in this article. The images are not necessary; they are provided via links in the sources cited. It is not necessary to post a photograph of the subject in this article in Wikipedia, and it violates Museum policy to do so. The uploader provides no convincing proof of the Museum's exhibits (which feature its photo archive materials and its own captions) being in the public domain. The detailed information is in the talk pages of both image pages.

Re: the uploader's unwarranted negative aspersions cast against my work on this article: WP:AGF in terms of improving this article in such a way that is consistent with Wikipedia media and image policies re: copyright and fair use.

The uploader has copied unlicensed photographs from YouTube video and a blog (which used an earlier Wikipedia as its source of the 3-pose photograph (which is posted illegally all over the internet contrary to prohibitions against photography of its exhibits by the Museum) and tried to argue "public domain"; these images are not in the public domain in the U.S. (or Poland).

Poeticbent has not proved in any convincing way that they are. Citing old versions of Polish copyright laws in general re: 1994 does not pertain. The exhibits (photographs w/ captions, etc.) are the property of the Museum and only accessible to visitors in the Museum, who are prohibited from using cameras (still and video) in those indoor exhibits. The captions on these photos are provided by the Museum in its exhibits. They belong to the Museum (its photographic archives) and their use is carefully protected by the Museum's policies, stated on its website (see the talk pages of the images and also the related articles I've linked to here and there. --NYScholar (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC) --no time left to corr. typog. errors here; clear enough. These images are not properly licensed for use in Wikipedia; the websites that they are copied from do not have GFDL-compatible licenses and are not within copyright laws in posting them, both in the U.S. and in Poland. --NYScholar (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not understand edit summary by Piotrus

[edit]

What is "FUR"? Why is the required speedy-deletion template caption being deleted (yet again? despite editing policy) from these images??????? --NYScholar (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing that that might be a policy page etc., I found it at WP:FUR, and, guessing what Piotrus intended, I myself have posted the images for review there. --NYScholar (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The templates in the captions are required by the speedy deletion template (see the end of it) in each image page speedy deletion template. Format/policy/guideline. See also: WP:FUR for the listing of each of these images. --NYScholar (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article from deletion

[edit]

Scroll up to template with information/links re: previous review: [2]. I have worked very hard to provide proper sources establishing the notability of this subject, and I do not want dubious licenses for images and dubious fair-use rationales to cause it to be deleted. The status of these speedy-deletion marked images needs to be crystal clear, so do not delete the required templates in the captions. They are required by the speedy-deletion templates in the image pages (in both image pages). Thank you. (Repeated request. See above.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template caption required from speedy-deletion template on image

[edit]

"Add following to the image captions: {{deletable image-caption}}." Added as required. This follows the format in the template. Click on the image and read the template. The instructions are there. --NYScholar (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those deleting it repeatedly are engaging in Wikipedia:Vandalism and their deletions will be reverted; reversions of vandalism are exceptions to WP:3RR (Wikipedia policy). --NYScholar (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

I've updated the articles on Czesława Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist; the External links sections now include a link to a YouTube video clip from the film, Portrecista (2005) (The Portraitist), as broadcast on TVP1, in Poland, on January 1, 2006, in which Wilhelm Brasse shows his photographs, including the three poses (in the original separate photographs) of Kwoka, and discusses these photographs of Kwoka. It is thus established without doubt that he is the photographer who took these photographs of Kwoka. I do not know how this information affects how the photographs uploaded by Poeticbent (and Nard) and/or others to Wikipedia and/or Wikipeda Commons are described on their image pages and how this information affects the possibities for "fair use rationales" or "licensing" or copyright or public domain in Poland or public domain the United States notices and/or claims. I leave that decision up to Wikipedia administrators with experience in copyright issues who have knowledge of how to license and upload such media in Wikipedia. NYScholar (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of viewing this and other video clips from the film, it appears to me that one would assign a "publication" date to the images of Kwoka as 2005 (the date of the film); the film is a copyrighted commercial property in Poland and, by virtue of the Berne convention to which the U.S. is a signatory, in the United States. I do not know how that affects the copyright status and/or fair use provision exceptions to copyright law in the United States; however, such exceptions regarding copies of films pertain to personal use not public distribution on the internet. The copyright/fair use/public domain in the U.S. claims for this and related images based on Brasse's photographs of Kwoka and on their exhibition by the Museum in its much larger series of photographs still seem complex to me, but, again, I leave that decision about whether or not and how to upload these images and how to present the image pages up to Wikipedia administrators with experience in copyright issues who have knowledge of how to license and upload such media. --NYScholar (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After review, the external links have been properly removed from this article's External links section. That is fine with me. --NYScholar (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update re: "public domain" in the United States

[edit]

Some parting comments re: the two images; for those still seeking to document the licenses that reference "public domain" in Poland and/or in the United States, one might want to take a look at the "Photo credits" in the PBS (U.S. public television) documentary Website for its series Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State (2005); about a week ago I edited the article on the BBC program to include the source citations for the PBS broadcast of the same program (with diff. title).

(cont.) Today, while searching "images of Auschwitz prisoners public domain" out of residual curiosity re: this matter, I located one photo credit referring to "public domain" in the U.S.-published Website for the BBC program shown on PBS: it is a photo credit for "Auschwitz prisoners" — not these particular Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum/Wilhelm Brasse photographs (taken c. 1942 or 1943), but photographs taken contemporaneously at Auschwitz in 1945, depicting prisoners outside on the grounds of the camp at a barbed wire fence at time of liberation, e.g.: see Credits, scroll down to "Liberation & Revenge": page 1 (hyperlinked): "Auschwitz prisoners" to see the photographs. If PBS is citing "public domain" in the United States, this might be a helpful precedent to cite re: Auschwitz photographs (taken by Polish photographers w/o copyright credits being given when first "published" [any such "publication" date still unknown?]). Just a thought.
(cont.) I do not expect to be editing Wikipedia much if at all in the near future, so I thought I'd leave others with this possible publication precedent in the U.S. for citing U.S. (and possiblly worldwide) "public domain" re: photographs of Auschwitz prisoners; though I am not sure it applies in the UK or European Union too; that would not matter if it applies in the U.S.
[Also see more recent comments added about three other Auschwitz "identification" photographs featured in the online photo archive of the USHMM below, which indicates that "public domain in the United States" does not apply to such photographs credited by the USHMM to the "National Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum" (not to "public domain"). --NYScholar (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(cont.) The so-called duplicate photograph (3 poses) of Kwoka in the Wik. Commons file of same name is not exactly the same; it would be a good idea to rename the Wikipedia version as asked in the template to reduce possibility of deletion; the one in Wik. Commons still has the Museum captions in it and by virtue of that is possibly not in the public domain. The cropped one w/o the Museum captions has a stronger argument for "public domain" in the U.S. (The one that is more clearly a photograph of the Museum-captioned photograph has a weaker argument as such, though I am not sure of that. See the various discussions of the two images linked via the templates.) It is important to correct the conflict/problem pointed out via the templates of the duplicate names for images that have conflicting licenses/fair use rationales in Wik. and Wik. Commons. If the images are determined by the reviews to be public domain in the U.S., they do not need fair-use rationales; they can be files in Wikipedia Commons (w/o Museum captions/the cropped version currently in this article) and not duplications w/ same name in Wikipedia (??). --NYScholar (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section

[edit]

Created a new section whose topic is the photographs with three poses, specifically the center (front) pose, moving the photograph into it as illustration of that discussion (WP:IUP). The photographs are separate photographs put together into the series of three poses in the Museum's indoor memorial exhibit in Block no. 6; the source citation follows documenting the section. May be also adjusting the cross-refs. in section(s) to accommodate this revision. --NYScholar (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cont.) Unfortunately, the recent editing of Wikipedia:Public domain does not help this situation. I had done a search for "images of Nazi regime U.S. copyright law" and been directed via Wapedia (Wikipedia for mobile telephones) to the following section, which was edited recently and has many missing citations and cannot therefore be used as a source for determining the propriety of how to license these images. See: [3]. That is a copy of the "content guideline" Wikipedia:Public domain, which has been edited recently by the uploader of the images whose licensing is under review; such edits are highly questionable, as the "content guideline" appears to be edited to support a position re: specific images currently under review (a past or potential edit war): see Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing for guidance. Editing content guidelines and policy pages in Wikipedia when involved in a difference of viewpoints re: specific content is highly problematic and frowned upon, especially if it is done w/o following WP:CITE and WP:V#Sources.

(cont.)I've added the missing citations templates and an editorial interpolation and a comment explaining the templates on the talk page at in that article's talk page. This is an alert to the potential problem of a feedback loop occurring in Wikipedia to validate images whose status is still under review pertaining to WP:IUP and WP:PUI. This is merely an expression of concern; see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, already in a template at top. When adding material to controversial articles or controversial sections of articles or content guidelines in Wikipedia, it is still necessary to avoid violating WP:NOR and to follow WP:V and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; these are core editing policies in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting these concerns, another editor has removed recently-added dubious material/questionable edits from Wikipedia:Public domain: a project page with the "content guideline" for "public domain" mentioned in the 2nd para. above (in this sec. of comments). The page still features related templates re: ongoing concerns (clean up notice; neutrality notice directing readers to see its talk page re: the concerns.) --NYScholar (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of images

[edit]

The "content guideline" for "images" in Wikipedia is: Wikipedia:Images. Re: size of image: it is not necessary to place more than "thumb", which will make it appear to readers given their own preferences in Wikipedia. I may remove the px parameter to see how that posts. According to the content guideline, one is asked not to specify pixels (size) and to use just the "thumb" for "thumbnail". I'll see if it makes any diff. and whether or not my own "preferences" in Wikipedia need some adjustment, as they may be affecting how it looks to me. (Not sure of this.) --NYScholar (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated) Did remove additional "size" ("px"); "thumb" suffices according to the content guideline Wikipedia:Image. (This is a minor "format" edit.) --NYScholar (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional information re: the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum photographs

[edit]

See User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues#Some additional information re: the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum photographs. --NYScholar (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-class

[edit]

Confirmed for WP:POLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Czesława Kwoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Czesława Kwoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Czesława Kwoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Czesława Kwoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death by lethal injection

[edit]

If there is evidence brought forth to substantiate the belief that she died by lethal injection then why is it uncertain? smh Trillfendi (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find any mention of evidence of lethal injection. The article states that the circumstances of her death are uncertain and not recorded. Perhaps you could elaborate on or clarify your question. freshacconci (✉) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources that state that she died by an injection of phenol to the heart. Therefore, with that said, how is her cause of death uncertain? Trillfendi (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The girl was murdered with a phenol injection into the heart in 1943.

— Marina Amaral/The Auschwitz Memorial Archive, https://thevalemagazine.com/2018/06/26/project-revives-nazi-atrocities-in-striking-color/
The Marina Amaral/The Auschwitz Memorial Archive credit is for the photograph. The caption is written by the story's author or editor. Where is their source? Online magazines finding information via google are not exactly reliable. We need sources with authority, peer-reviewed, written by historians, anything legitimate. Someone somewhere down the line stated that she died from a "phenol injection into the heart". Did that original statement have evidence? Now that "fact" is presented as such by The Vale Magazine. That's how false information enters the mainstream as fact, people just passing along something they read until it just becomes "true". We need to do better in articles on the Holocaust and Nazism. freshacconci (✉) 16:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been doing some searching in google scholar for anything that discusses Czesława Kwoka's death. The English results I've found so far discuss the photo and some sources only go as far as saying she died in Auschwitz, some stating basically that the circumstances are unknown or unrecorded. Unfortunately, I suspect that this may be the case, for the very simple reason that the Nazis couldn't be bothered to record the death of a 14-year-old Polish girl who they placed in the camp to die. I don't think I need to remind anyone of the Nazi attitudes towards Poles. To Nazis, her death was unimportant. Sure, the Nazis kept records; much of the evidence of the Holocaust comes from the Nazis themselves. But that they didn't record how this one particular person died should still be of no surprise. Thousands of people died daily in Auschwitz and were cremated and forgotten. This may be a case of someone whose death we can only describe as under uncertain circumstances. That she was imprisoned specifically to die and that she died at the age of 14 is enough to justify calling her death murder.
That said, I will continue to look. I have access to a couple of university libraries and can search for more sources. If someone is a native Polish speaker or can read Polish at an academic level, there are many sources out there in Polish that I cannot read, but they may provide some insight. freshacconci (✉) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen Edward Reid's tweet, that appears to confirm the phenol injection hypothesis (I don't know whether or not that is regarded as a definitive source);
https://twitter.com/AgainstRevisio1/status/1585375726010011648
A foul way to die anyway. Meltingpot (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources mentioning Czesława Kwoka's death

[edit]

In light of the above discussion, I've looked at google scholar and university databases for articles on "Czesława Kwoka" and "Czesława Kwoka" +death. These are the English results I found, with the relevant text quoted. Note that there are many Polish sources but I cannot read those.

  • "Wilhelm Brasse; Polish photographer and political prisoner who was told to photograph Jewish arrivals at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp." The Times (London) (Oct. 27, 2012): p108.

"In later life Brasse was haunted by the memories of the children he had photographed. Fear is imprinted on the faces of many in the images which survive. He was especially affected by the three shots he remembered taking of Czeslawa Kwoka, a 14-year-old Polish Catholic girl who died at Auschwitz in 1943. Moments before he recorded her picture, she had been drying her tears and staunching blood from a cut lip received in a beating from a female guard. The combination of innocence and terror that he photographed has made the image one of the best-known among those on show at the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum."

  • "Wilhelm Brasse Dies at 94; Documented Nazis' Victims" by Dennis Hevesi. The New York Times. (Oct. 25, 2012): pA29.

"PHOTOS: Prisoner identity photographs, taken by Wilhelm Brasse, of Czeslawa Kwoka of Poland. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Czeslawa arrived with her family at Auschwitz on Dec. 13, 1942, and died on March 12, 1943. She was 14. (PHOTOGRAPH BY AUSCHWITZ MUSEUM, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS); Wilhelm Brasse in 2006. (PHOTOGRAPH BY CZAREK SOKOLOWSKI/ASSOCIATED PRESS)"

  • "'I was murdered in Auschwitz': victims of Holocaust remembered on Twitter; One account tweets about the St Louis, a vessel carrying Jews fleeing Nazi Germany that was turned away from the US" The Guardian (Jan. 28, 2017).

"To mark the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, photographer Marina Maral recoloured a photograph taken in Auschwitz of 14-year-old Polish Catholic Czeslawa Kwoka. Czeslawa was killed in 1943."

  • "Is technology bringing history to life or distorting it?" Steve Hendrix. The Washington Post. (May 10, 2018).

"Color is also the digital palette for Brazilian artist Marina Amaral, who has gained a following with her carefully researched tinting of historical images. Her photos include haunting updates of Abraham Lincoln, Rasputin and a turn-of-the-century banana dock in New York. Her recent colorization of the Auschwitz headshot of 14-year-old Czeslawa Kwoka went viral."

  • "The nazi genocide: Eugenics, ideology, and implementation 1933-1945" Michael A. Letsinger. East Tennessee State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2015.
  • Note: this is an MA thesis and I wasn't able to access the actual document. It's of limited use (no offense to the author; my MA thesis is of little use to anyone either. Such is the nature of an MA). However, it appears to mention Kwoka and may provide further sources.

That's all I could find in English. I do wish the editor in the previous discussion who claims to have found several sources would provide us with those sources, as google scholar and my university database searches are finding little of use. And google scholar does not filter out Wikipedia mirrors and other sites copying this Wikipedia article (sometimes without attribution), so we need to be wary of that. freshacconci (✉) 17:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kwoka's story was an absolutely heartbreaking read and it's good to see the effort put into finding out more information about her. Much appreciated. Sellsomepapers (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czesława_Kwoka&oldid=1212773203"